Or more specifically, if I recall the several last discussions, the problem is with autonomous mechanical entities in visible roles, because we see very little of that in the game? Certainly there's nothing like the ubiquity we find in Star Wars, where the protagonists not only regularly interact with bots, but the bots become key players in the action.
I notice a distinct lack of Bots and Droids
- Thread starter ScotHarvest
- Start date
Or more specifically, if I recall the several last discussions, the problem is with autonomous mechanical entities in visible roles, because we see very little of that in the game? Certainly there's nothing like the ubiquity we find in Star Wars, where the protagonists not only regularly interact with bots, but the bots become key players in the action.
That's about it. If they keep a world with a sapient population of 30 million operating as if it was a society of 130 million, then it's just part of their lifestyle, no-one thinks twice of it.
So in Traveller they may not be PCs, but can instead become NPCs with significant roles.
A population of 30 million operating as if it was a society of 130 million would have its GWP based on 130 million, but the trade rules always assume that the population is the one mentioned in the UWP. The only way that would work is if all the robots were included in the population figure.
Hans
Sure that sounds good, let's do that!
They could, but they don't in the existing Imperium milieu, which is one of the problems people brought up. If it is cheaper and easier to buy an android "fluent in over six million forms of communication" than to find and hire an organic fluent in three or four forms, then why aren't we seeing protocol droids everywhere? No problem inserting them in one's own universe wherever one wants, but we'd either have to retcon them in or invent some excuse for their notable absence to bring Book-8 in line with the published Imperium setting.
Well, no, because it only partly behaves as if it were a society of 130 million. It's production capacity would be well above norm - and we're indeed told that high tech worlds produce more stuff more cheaply than lower tech worlds - but the bots don't buy or use consumer goods. Imports of raw materials and resources needed for production would be higher, but imports of finished goods would be as for a population of 30 million.
Possibly, but that 'partly' is enough to prove my point.
But we're not talking about the difference between a lower-tech and a higher-tech society, we're talking about the difference between two societies with the same tech level but a different number of bots.
Hans
Because while it may be cheaper to build the protocol droid, the people who run the system prefer to use people for protocol roles. That's not to say though that the people who run underwater mines are adverse to more bots, nor manufacturers who want to run the production line 27 hours a day with a few off for maintenance.
You're right in that this would not be the 3I we know. However there are big gaps in the details we have on it, gaps in which a few invisible-in-plain-sight bots could exist in interstellar society. Or is that just not kosher?
As I've said before, the existence of robots (autonomous mechanical entities) are just as firmly established in the OTU as their non-ubiquity. There's a companion bot mentioned in T4's Central Supply Catalog for Milieu 0, there is information about a popular robot manufactured by one of the megacorporations, etc., etc.. So what is needed is some way to balance the utility and economics of robots with countervailing factors that make them uncommon but not unknown. If robots are cheaper than common human labor, the countervailing factors have to be a LOT stronger than if robots are more expensive but with other advantages.
Hans
Patron Zero
SOC-13
Perhaps I'm showing a bit of naivete in this discussion but would not the standard of living, if not culture, be elevated if the bulk of 'brute' labor is done by machines (i.e. robots, drones, droids etc) freeing that segment of a population from such toil ?
Mind not every former blue-collar worker is a potential daVinci or aspiring poet-laureate but would not such persons otherwise 'destined' to said labors now be free to pursue education or other options for vocation.
Agreed there will always be a need for ditch-diggers and coal-miners in all societies but to not employ machines for reasons other than cost-efficiency seems a bit more based in dogma than economics.
Mind not every former blue-collar worker is a potential daVinci or aspiring poet-laureate but would not such persons otherwise 'destined' to said labors now be free to pursue education or other options for vocation.
Agreed there will always be a need for ditch-diggers and coal-miners in all societies but to not employ machines for reasons other than cost-efficiency seems a bit more based in dogma than economics.
That depends highly upon the nature of wealth distribution.
There are several methods of wealth distribution...
One is ownership only - in such cases, only those who can provide a good or service of value to the ownership will have direct improvement; if they themselves can afford better than subsistence, then they can trickle wealth further down. This can result in strikingly low median and modal standards of living, while having a tiny minority living in absolute splendor.
A second is benevolent state ownership - the state owns the means of production, and operates them for the benefit of the state's "stakeholders" - either the electorate, or the populace in total, depending upon various sociological factors. This can result in a very uniform, and potentially very low or moderately high standard, based upon other sociological factors.
A third is taxation-and-distribution. It's generally seen as a midway point, but really, it's off to the side, and ranges from a marginal subsistence model to a comfortable standard of living which can be exceeded by non-mandatory employment.
A fourth is taxation-funded makework distribution; also called subsidized workfare. In such a system, the tax monies are used to mandate some form of gainful work in exchange for a wage disproportionate to the value of the work in a market economy. In the most extreme cases, the work is of no net benefit; for example, requiring the recipient to stand a shift as a crossing guard at a school during the hours the school is closed, "just in case"....
A variant on makework is regulation-induced workfare. In such a system, employers are required to have some portion of their corporate income dedicated to employees - even if they aren't required to have those employees do anything meaningful. In general, this can be typified by "the Jetsons" - George is required to show up for work, push the button at start and end of shift, do a few reports verbally based upon the computer's output, and not piss off Spacely. Spacely, for his part, knows that Jetson's of no actual required value, and while he threatens, he knows that if he fires George, someone with actual motivation might show up and divert even more resources. The Jetsons never says why, but does show us (by virtue of the relationship) that Jetson sleeping on shift is preferable to some intern actually impeding the real work. Such systems will vary widely by how the assignment of required employees is made. Generally, tho', when left to the employer, it will tend to be a few overpaid (and thus more easily housed) instead of many at subsistence, simply because more people is more risk. Left to regulators, it will be lots of less well paid employees, simply to spread the wealth further and thus require less of a percentage of everyone's...
There is also the Mega City 1 model, where you the Citizen owns a (or many) Robot(s) that you lease to the government or some company who pays you for their use and you sit around all day being bored out of your skull, you are unemployed but your Investment supplements you Welfare or if your lucky gets you off the Dole, but still leaves you unemployed.
Then, how would those same people eat? Dabbling as an untalented painter doesn't put food on the table or a roof over ones head?
Aramis outlined the common wealth distribution schemes. Looking at those, one can extrapolate answers. They do something productive and useful for He Who Has The Gold, whether that be some rich person or the State: perhaps they manage the bots, providing supervision and direction. Or, they do makework in exchange for the basic necessities: maybe the bots don't need a supervisor, or not as many, but they're hired anyway (perhaps because the State mandates it, perhaps because some union negotiated it in exchange for permitting the bots - perhaps under this scheme dabbling as an untalented painter DOES put food on the table and a roof over one's head). Or, they live on handouts. Or, they're on their, doing whatever they can to survive.
Some of those schemes harbor obvious inherent instabilities. One presumes a society developed its technology gradually enough that it has processes for addressing those instabilities, whether that consists of universal schooling to ensure adequate skills and employment or a very intense police presence to control the hungry masses of unemployed, or whatever. If it doesn't then those instabilities will serve as a natural check, either forcing the development of solutions, retarding further progress or triggering a step back in the form of civil disorder or perhaps even revolution triggered by the instabilities.
I asked the OP for his idea...
The "OP" hasn't posted on this board in 11 months. Could you be more specific? Also, as it's an open thread, anyone can, and probably will, reply if you pose a question.
If society can produce enough bots to do all the work required with producing the necessities of life, society could likely feed them. Then it becomes not a questions of how do they survive, but more how to they live.
The interesting thing about the OTU is that there are significant differences between worlds, leading to some difficult questions about people being able to and permitted to migrate from lower to higher-tech worlds.
Do the become not econimic migrants, but tech migrants or tech refugees?
"society" is a generality. Does the person walk around asking "society" for money? What mechanism exactly? "Society" can also also produce enough to give me a Boeing 737 but, it hasn't happened yet.
Well, society does build 737s, but economically it doesn't make sense to give one to you (from anyone else's perspective...)
My point was that if production of the elements required to provide individuals with a suitable (yes, I know that'd subjective to a significant degree) lifestyle then when a person has what they need to live in terms of ongoing food and shelter then the things that give then satisfaction and a sense of purpose come into play. See the writing of Iain M. Banks for some ideas on this - The Culture is a bit of an nth degree of this concept.
Automation enabling communism? Possibly, though I recognise it's not sustainable when recently derived from in a regular capitalist environment involving humans as we know them. It would take some time for social evolution to catch up to technical capability, leading to something alien but not inconceivable.
Yes, people do that, as well as simply taking it without asking. Then I unfortunately have to attend to them.
My point was that if production of the elements required to provide individuals with a suitable (yes, I know that'd subjective to a significant degree) lifestyle then when a person has what they need to live in terms of ongoing food and shelter then the things that give then satisfaction and a sense of purpose come into play. See the writing of Iain M. Banks for some ideas on this - The Culture is a bit of an nth degree of this concept.
Automation enabling communism? Possibly, though I recognise it's not sustainable when recently derived from in a regular capitalist environment involving humans as we know them. It would take some time for social evolution to catch up to technical capability, leading to something alien but not inconceivable.
Yes, people do that, as well as simply taking it without asking. Then I unfortunately have to attend to them.
C-3po might only be high autonomous with emotion simulation... but, given certain other technologies, the SW Universe is generally TL 17+
Good thing I don't.