Upcoming Japanese hotel chain will be very light on staff, but quite heavy on robots.

This new hotel in Japan will have robots for their receptionists as well as for menial things like cleaning, which the owner hopes will eventually take care of 90 percent of the property. Other high-tech wizardry that will be there include facial recognition sensors on room doors and a special radiator panel in each room which can sense body heat and turn the thermostat down.

Essentially, it will be the world’s most high-tech budget hotel and perhaps the world’s most efficient (you don’t have to pay robots anything). It will make your local motel chain look like it came out of ancient Rome in comparison.

I know that a few here like BPR would love to be one of their first guests if they were able to, but what about the rest?

Its interesting, but like self-service tills in shops its bound to cause outrage when unemployment is a concern.

They’ll more than make it up with technicians to fix the robots. And, if the legal environment in Japan is anything like the craziness of America, the first time a robot runs over a patron’s toe, the hotel will be closed because it must be sold to pay the legal bills. :frowning:

I think they should build a robot for each man women, and child, that works in your stead.

then we can focus on solving real problems, rather then economic ones.

Everyone should also continue to get paid, without working.

I would rather have 100 new Einsteins then 100 new tortured factory rats.

I suspected this for a while, but it seems like this is an admission that you would rather want to be lazy and have a robot do all the work for you (further evident by the line of wanting to be paid for doing nothing).

Is working for the good things in life really such a terrible thing?

Heck, it leaves me wondering if you would also rather have that robot work on Wrectified and all you do is give it gameplay requests from the couch. The human body is built to do work (your muscles for instance require a workload or otherwise they waste away), the work of your hands builds strength, builds character, and builds discipline.

I love to work, I just like for it to matter.

What I mean people can work ,

if they want, or learn for free.

People sewing pants in 110 degree sheds is not good .

suicide nets on windows at sweft shops is bad.

people carring about each other, and learning, is better then making shoes.

The venus project sees technological unemployment as a when not a if,

in fact many jobs are much hetter suited to a computer.

When computers start watching youtube videos , then cook you dinner, things start change. infinite labor means your labor is worth nothing.

I work, then work on my project and help people…

That isn’t universally true: when Odysseus was on the island of Phaiakia, on his way home, the Phaiakian aristocrats taunted him that he didn’t look like he was any good at games, that he looked like some tramp boat captain, lugging goods from island to island and selling them for as much as he could get (they implied that was a rotten way to make a living, by the way).

That’s because the movers and shakers on that island (and this was pretty much true for most of the people around the Mediterranean at the time) did not do any work. Not with their hands. They gave orders to other people who did work, and they played games (mostly athletic games like spear tossing and races and throwing large rocks for distance, and wrestling). They got plenty of exercise, though, with all that running and tossing heavy things around.

They were of the opinion that the things that built strength and character and instilled discipline in a person was competition in games. And I’ve heard echos of this exact same opinion voiced by people I’ve known in our own day and age who played football or basketball in High School or College.

So you might want to re-visit that ‘work ethic’ thing you have going.

Reminds me of this article

Nice read

It’s what I have been saying, Either we will all be free to do as we please, or we will be the victims of “Day Took er Jobs!”

You’re implying as if unregulated Asian sweatshops is the one true epitome of work. That work is torture, for the vast majority of cases, is simply not true in a lot of developed nations like the US, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, and much of Europe.

They were of the opinion that the things that built strength and character and instilled discipline in a person was competition in games. And I’ve heard echos of this exact same opinion voiced by people I’ve known in our own day and age who played football or basketball in High School or College.

And then you hear on the news about how some of the more well known athletes become egotistical and either fall into affairs or believe they are above the idea of ethics. Building character through athletics may be possible, but there is also a corruption factor if you’re not careful.

where I am, its skilled labor, or stuff a robot can do.

Not any in between.

I take care of people, I am paid by the government to do this.
I work overtime, and have had no vacaction in 3 years. Not even a day off.

I love what I do,
that does not mean I think you should toil needlessly.

if a robot can learn your job ,and also do it 3 times faster, and make a better product, its just dumb to have you do that work.

Indeed you do. The ‘princes’ of Ithaka were eating Odysseus out of house and home while he was away, and plotted to steal his wife and kill his son. Hubris leading to corruption is not a new thing. But is that because of the atheletic competition, or is it an after effect when the winners are lionized, adulated and treated as entitled by all and sundry? You note yourself that it is ‘more well known’ athletes who succumb to this.

And which direction is more likely to produce tangible results that last for life, which direction gives more fruit, which direction does a better job of promoting humility over egoism, which direction is less likely to bring you to the wrong side of the law?

If you purchase a robot, and set it to making random bobs and bits people want on the internet, and become a skilled artist, or a doctor or a jewler or?

In a world where labor will be worth nothing via supply and demand…

infinite labor will mean almost free labor.

also about my game… It’s all working there are a few more things to set up, but it’s actually flowering into a kit of assets you can use for any game.

This is a character motion controller system, that can retarget actors or vehicles with minimal fuss.

the same system can also push the actors into other states like idle or AI control.

The movement filter system means it’s a state machine
and can both manipulate physics and animation.


ControllerRecieverTemplate.blend (467 KB)

Which direction gives more fruit and better job of promoting HUMANITY over EGOISM?

Promoting humanity is sharing and helping, promoting EGOISM is modern day turbo capitalism!
Automatization of work is at the doorstep and i think the fruits of tech advancement is the right of all of the humanity not just selected few (multibillionares and their spoiled sons)

Inheritance should be abolished. So every man has the same “starting point”.

Example: Does Paris Hilton got any bragging rights? What did she do for out earth or humanity. Why does she have the right to have the access to so many resources if she didnt work? (ever, never)

We are living in a closed circle of resources so we should distribute it equaly.

Why are some people billionares and didnt work for a sec? ACE?? thats ok for u? And that people want to tell ordinary working people what to do and how to live? Yeah right!

True story: When i was a turist guide i often got this question from English turists visiting Slovenia: T: Are all the people living here in Slovenia rich?

G: Hm? Why/
T: Everyone lives in a house here, in England only the rich people live in houses and others live in flats.
My answer was…Because we lived in SOCIALISM! And that is the only real and right answer!

In capitalism there is no money for the poor!

The one who thinks that you are worth less than someone with more money is just stupid or how to say an eternal slave to self appointed masters!

My 2 cents.

Yeah, that inheritance thing is a real kicker. Ancient people seem to have solved that problem by burying a person’s ‘stuff’ along with the dead body.

Despite what many people think, inheritance is not a ‘natural law’, it is a construct of legislation and can and has been modified in different times and different cultures. Modern capitalism’s inheritance rules do create some extreme wealth inequality and drones like Paris Hilton or other trust fund babies.

So the question is: how do you distribute that wealth? Do you have government provide a lot of services that anyone can access, or do you simply give a share of the national ‘patrimony’ to each citizen when he or she comes of age? Or some mix of the two? How do you solve the problem of ‘free-riders’ or ‘slackers’ when it is possible to live without working? What incentives do you provide for folks who need external motivation?

All economic systems have answers to those questions. What we need to discuss is whether those answers are moral and just.

Read my post again, I didn’t actually say ‘humanity’, but ‘humility’ (might be a little bit of a language barrier here).

Inheritance should be abolished. So every man has the same “starting point”.

And who defines that starting point? What is the starting point? Also, does this mean you have government officials raiding the houses of the deceased and seizing everything regardless of wealth level so none of it can be passed to the next generation?

Socialism is popular because it caters to those who would rather have the fruits of life come to them (by taking them away from others) rather than they working to obtain it themselves. People in general would become quite wary of any prospect of starting a business and finding success because the government will determine if they are too successful and must have their earnings taken away from them to be given to the ‘gimme’ crowd… The only country nowadays where you have perfect income and living equality is Cuba and that is because the government policies cause everyone to be poor (except for those in power).

If the government can give me more than what I would get from a job, and I don’t have to do anything, many people will then just sleep on the couch and watch TV than do anything productive (because they know they can get a living wage for doing nothing).

Regarding no money for the poor, this is where the generous giving of those who are more fortunate come in, what you need is a way to encourage a culture where people give on the kindness of their own hearts (ie. not forced to by law). Helping the poor is to mainly be done by a combination of this as well as the work of charitable organizations, with the only role of government being to foster an environment of opportunities so that they can rise out of poverty on their own. You might disagree that it should be the job of charity to tend to the poor, but they can do things a lot more efficiently and easily because they do not have to deal with the massive level of convolution, corruption, and wastefulness that plagues a lot of governments today.

Relying on charity is an incredibly regressive way to raise funds for poor relief. It is well known and documented that the poor give much more of their income to charity than do the rich, and the money the rich give is often not for direct poor relief, but is for some vanity project that they are encouraged to do by peculiar tax laws.

You’re also building up a nice little straw man scenario with the jack booted government thugs (did they arrive in black UN helicopters?) raiding some poor dead schmuck’s house and ripping the pots and pans and furniture away from the hands of the schmuck’s bereaved widow and newly orphaned children. Is that really how taxation works in Kansas? I didn’t think so…

There is a ‘moral hazard’ involved in over generous welfare programs, but to frame them as all or nothing, as you have done, isn’t a very productive way to discuss it. And what of the ‘moral hazard’ inherent in providing government subsidies to agricultural corporations to grow corn, or to energy companies to drill for oil? Oh, right, we were just talking about poor folks, weren’t we?

Ace, you have it all wrong,

People working for just enough to live, crappilly is called economic slavery.

I myself work 80 hours overtime a month or more.

I still would keep doing what I am doing. The real thing is that is if we have no multi billionaires, we can then each make a impact on the future. It’s like saying you want a competition, but all of the runners except one have to wear backpacks full of bricks,

That is not a competition.

Would you rather have charity help you or the government? Keep in mind that the US government for instance is one of the most inefficient and wasteful organizations on Earth today (look at the boondoggle that is the VA system for instance).

Also, it sounds like there’s a generalization in there that says every rich man is greedy and would rather fund his ego, not everyone who has a living standard higher than the middle class deserves to be demonized and as such force a removal of everything that he’s earned. There’s a lot of wealthy people out there who are happy to give a large amount of money to help those in need.

Yes, there are wealthy people who are greedy, but the attribute of greed is not exclusive to the rich either. If you started a company (which in turn started to see rapid growth), and the government announced that it will not be allowed to have a profit above a few million dollars and that your wage cannot be higher than say 100,000 USD a year, would you still work to build it or would you decide it’s not worth it?

Regarding the government thugs allegation, it’s hard to get more absolute against something when you say that something like inheritance should be abolished. Inheritance is simply the passing down of wealth and property to the next generation (which applies to all wealth levels), how else would you ensure that everyone has the same starting point?

Also, the purpose of welfare at the least is that it’s supposed to be temporary help with the intention that economically, that person gets on his feet again. The issue today though is that, depending on the situation, it has grown to where you can actually make a living just by collecting welfare, at least require that person to sign up for a minimum wage job while he is looking for a better one so one can have the impression that he is earning it.

Also, BPR, if you don’t like your job, you should try to find a different one. If you don’t qualify, then find a way to learn a new trade. If there’s no opportunity out there, then the economic system needs a revision to one that fosters more opportunity and encourages companies to hire more, which also means a system that can get them more customers. Contrary to what some of today’s youth might think, it’s not all the fault of the rich, it’s unproductive in general to treat the rich as scapegoats for all of the world’s problems.