LENR and Jobs

In recent months I have been noticing an increasing number of news stories and media commentary on the expected impact of automation on jobs. The basic premise of the articles is usually the same: that a large percentage of jobs that are currently done by humans will disappear within the next few decades as robotics and artificial intelligence develops and is deployed to replace them.

Here’s just one example from the Pew Research Center. In an article titled “The Future of Jobs and Jobs Training”, the authors write:

“Machines are eating humans’ jobs talents. And it’s not just about jobs that are repetitive and low-skill. Automation, robotics, algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) in recent times have shown they can do equal or sometimes even better work than humans who are dermatologists, insurance claims adjusters, lawyers, seismic testers in oil fields, sports journalists and financial reporters, crew members on guided-missile destroyers, hiring managers, psychological testers, retail salespeople, and border patrol agents. Moreover, there is growing anxiety that technology developments on the near horizon will crush the jobs of the millions who drive cars and trucks, analyze medical tests and data, perform middle management chores, dispense medicine, trade stocks and evaluate markets, fight on battlefields, perform government functions, and even replace those who program software – that is, the creators of algorithms.”

Many people like to think that their own profession is special, and it would be unlikely that their particular job could be replaced by a machine, but the list above covers a huge range of jobs; white and blue collar, low-tech and high-tech.

While there seems to be wide agreement that technology will mean the replacement of workers by machines, there is less consensus on whether more new jobs for humans will be created than lost. The Pew article cited above reports that in a 2014 survey, 48% of experts surveyed responded that more jobs would be lost than created, while 52% believed the opposite.

So where does LENR fit into this picture? I actually think that most people currently thinking and talking about jobs and automation are completely discounting the possibility that a radical new energy source could emerge in the near future. Many leaders today talk about a wave of “green jobs” that should be created to deal with issues connected with the environment and climate change, but they are thinking in terms of jobs connected with wind and solar, rather than LENR. A recent US Department of Energy report stated that in 2016 the solar workforce increased by 25% in 2016, and wind power workforce increased by 32%.

If LENR really does prove to be a viable energy source, and it takes off commercially, there should be a surge in workers needed to manufacture and install LENR power systems, and this could certainly add jobs to the workforce. If the power density of LENR is far superior to other energy sources, and if it is widely recognized as being inexpensive, safe and carbon-free, there could be a worldwide push to transition away from both the fossil fuel industries, and wind and solar, and a whole new industry could be born with many new workers needed to bring about this transition. Jobs would be lost in the current energy sectors, but perhaps surpassed by new LENR jobs.

There is also the indirect impact of a LENR revolution to consider, which could be much more significant. There are regions and nations where the economy is largely based on oil, coal or natural gas resources, and move away from fossil fuels to LENR would have a massive economic impact which would affect not only jobs but government revenues. Oil-rich nations are already dealing with the fallout from a huge drop in oil prices over recent years, and are struggling to fund basic government programs. Those problems could be exacerbated if LENR breaks out.

I am thinking here in the short term, but long term impacts from LENR could be even more significant. I believe we have not yet seen an energy technology that is as potentially revolutionary as LENR. Energy production has always been a labor and resource intensive, but from what we have been hearing lately, it could become a rather trivial thing in terms of cost and labor to produce massive amounts of energy, and this is something the world has never faced. Since energy costs are at the root of almost all production, we could really be moving into an age of abundance which could upend all political and economic systems and cause us to rethink how society functions.

  • AdrianAshfield

    I have been writing about this for a couple of years now with several articles published in my local paper.
    What I see is that the problem of the transition to fewer jobs as a result of robotics and AI is serious and not being thought about or discussed by the government.
    UBI (Universal Basic Income) is one of the few possible solutions and that needs to be tried out on a larger scale to see what the snags are. I doubt the present Republican government would deign to even discuss that.

    It is extremely difficult to forecast how quickly the impact of AI will grow. The higher paid jobs are starting to be threatened because they obviously have a bigger ROI. For example pharmacists where already one major hospital in CA has automated the process for 9,000 prescription per day.

    With robotics, a lot of development is under way for military purposes, that should frighten the life out of us, and consider what robots will be able to do when powered by LENR rather than batteries.

    No question that making LENR reactors and putting them to commercial use will entail a lot of new jobs over the next two decades but these will be offset to some extent by loss of jobs in the oil and gas industries.
    I think this will offset the loss of jobs going on due to robotics and AI and make the transition easier.
    Ultimately we will end up with a lot fewer jobs, but for this to happen without blood on the streets requires a better government than now exists.

    • Billy Jackson

      As a republican i will state that i am more than willing to have a conversation about a UBI. I do not think its a bad idea overall but it does have some pitfalls that have to be overcome before i would be willing to put my vote on it.

      1. Are we creating a nation of dependency?

      2. Where lies the outlets for education and advancement to pull oneself off a UBI if you so desire.

      3. Where & How do we draw limits to prevent abuse? whats to stop someone from having 7 kids just to get a higher UBI? (my understanding the current talks are around 12k a year per adult and 4-8k per child)

      4. How do we prevent UBI from becoming a political force? he who controls the purse strings controls the people. (aka used to influence votes through fear mongering)

      5. Do both parties have the political will power to see through the launch of a UBI with all its uncertainty. You would be loosing all other forms of government assistance. medicaid, medicare, food stamps, Wic, social security, government housing, child tax credit.. ect..

      6. do you still pay taxes at the end of the year?

      7. we cant get health care right… and you want to go to a UBI.. explain to me how we dont create an agency that could very well be more powerful than any thats come before it and how do we keep the bureaucracy down to a minimum

      These are but a few questions.. not all that we need to touch on before a UBI can brought forth.

      • AdrianAshfield

        Billy, I don’t have complete answers. As I said, it needs to be tried on a larger scale to see what the snags are. The small trials I have read about have all been very successful.

        1. With UBI everyone receives payment no matter what they earn. There will be a percentage who goof off as they do now with various types of welfare payments. The advantage is that is that it gives those who can’t find a job the possibility of doing something useful on their own. Trials show this happens. What are you going to do when 50% of the jobs disappear?

        2. There is no “pulling out” of UBI. If you want to improve your education to earn more UBI helps

        3. There are no limits. Welfare is abused like that already. I don’t know what the payment for kids would be but hopefully not enough to encourage that form of abuse.

        4. I’m sure it would become a political force. Seen any politician talking about reducing Social Security? Unfortunately we have to rely on politicians doing the right thing. Some limit on Federal debt might help curb that.

        5. No, probably not. Healthcare would remain and be treated separately. ALL other government subsides would go. I suppose UBI might be high enough to pay for medical insurance but I believe a single payer system reduces the cost of healthcare. We pay 2 – 8 times as much as other advanced countries with poorer outcomes. One advantage is that it would not require a large government agency to manage UBI – it would be paid to all based on, say Soc Sec #, automatically. No checking of eligibility required. Some form of help would presumably be required for the 10 million illegal residents.

        6. Yes, UBI is simply added on to your wages/salary.

        7. True. Present healthcare is a farce. $30 for a Tylenol tablet, the president of a non profit hospital making $4 million a year, you can’t see what hospitals charge and it varies according to the payer. government not allowed to go for competitive bids on drugs, . etc etc.
        I don’t see the need for an “agency.” One big advantage is that it would cut government bureaucracy. UBI would be set by Congress.

        There are articles on UBI and the trials that go further. It does require some thought to get the details right – something sadly lacking from the government.

      • AdrianAshfield

        Billy, I don’t have complete answers. As I said, it needs to be tried on a larger scale to see what the snags are. The small trials I have read about have all been very successful.

        1. With UBI everyone receives payment no matter what they earn. There will be a percentage who goof off as they do now with various types of welfare payments. The advantage is that is that it gives those who can’t find a job the possibility of doing something useful on their own. Trials show this happens. What are you going to do when 50% of the jobs disappear?

        2. There is no “pulling out” of UBI. If you want to improve your education to earn more UBI helps

        3. There are no limits. Welfare is abused like that already. I don’t know what the payment for kids would be but hopefully not enough to encourage that form of abuse.

        4. I’m sure it would become a political force. Seen any politician talking about reducing Social Security? Unfortunately we have to rely on politicians doing the right thing. Some liit of Federal debt might help curb that.

        5. No, probably not. Healthcare would remain and be treated separately. ALL other government subsides would go. I suppose UBI might be made high enough to pay for medical insurance but I believe a single payer system reduces the cost of healthcare. We pay 2 – 8 times as much as other advanced countries with no benefit in outcomes. One advantage is that it would not require a large government agency to manage UBI – it would be paid to all automatically based on, say Soc Sec # automatically. No checking of eligibility required. Some form of help would presumably be required for the 10 million illegal residents.

        6. Yes, UBI is simply added on to your wages/salary.

        7. True. Present healthcare is a farce. $30 for a Tylenol tablet, the president of a non profit hospital making $4 million a year, you can’t see what hospitals chagre and ti varies according to the payer. government not allowed to go for competitive bids on drugs, . etc etc.
        I don’t see the need for an “agency.” One big advantage is that it would cut government bureaucracy. UBI would be set by Congress.

        • Billy Jackson

          see. not so hard to have a conversation 🙂 nothing wrong with your view points sir. I may agree or disagree based on my own. but as long as we can talk without finger pointing we can accomplish much. its when agenda’s and self interest take hold that we see good intentions flounder to its knees in the halls of our political offices.. how can it help or hurt me.. not what can it do for my people.

          we need those like you and myself to send a message to both parties Republican and Democrat.. its time to sweep our political offices clean and start over.. this voting the party line regardless of how bad the individual is has hurt our country and divided us as a nation.. when the best we can put forth is Hillary or Trump… it says a lot about the leadership of both our parties.. and its time to start over with new people in charge that can work together to solve our issues not create a trillion dollar health care bill and call it fixed.

          Until we get people who are held accountable.. we will not change.

          • AdrianAshfield

            BIlly, “Until we get people who are held accountable.. we will not change.” says it all.
            I have no trouble talking to you but I might as well talk to a brick wall as talk to Congressman Pat Meehan. I’ve even met him.

            I had a faint hope Trump might do some swamp draining but obviously he isn’t going to.

            What it will take is for voters to stop re-electing their representatives but there is little sign of that happening.

          • AdrianAshfield

            DISQUS has eaten my reply to you.

      • AdrianAshfield

        Billy, I don’t have complete answers. As I said, it needs
        to be tried on a larger scale to see what the snags are. The small trials I
        have read about have all been very successful.

        1. With UBI everyone receives payment no matter what they
        earn. There will be a percentage who goof off as they do now with various types of welfare payments. The advantage is that is that it gives those who can’t
        find a job the possibility of doing something useful on their own. Trials show
        this happens. What are you going to do when 50% of the jobs disappear?

        2. There is no “pulling out” of UBI. If you want to improve your education to earn
        more UBI helps

        3. There are no limits.
        Welfare is abused like that already.
        I don’t know what the payment for kids would be but hopefully not enough
        to encourage that form of abuse.

        4. I’m sure it would
        become a political force. Seen any politician talking about reducing Social Security? Unfortunately we have to rely on politicians
        doing the right thing. Some limit of Federal debt might help curb that.

        5. No, probably not. Healthcare would remain and be treated separately. ALL other government subsidies would go. I suppose UBI might be high enough to pay for medical insurance but I believe a single payer system reduces the cost of
        healthcare. We pay 2 – 8 times as much as other advanced countries with no benefit in outcomes. One advantage is that it would not require a large government agency to manage UBI – it would be paid to all based on, say Soc Sec #, automatically. No checking of eligibility required. Some form of help would presumably be
        required for the 10 million illegal residents.

        6. Yes, UBI is simply added on to your wages/salary.

        7. True. Present
        healthcare is a farce. $30 for a Tylenol tablet, the president of a nonprofit hospital making $4 million a year, you
        can’t see what hospitals charge and it varies according to the payer. government not allowed to go for competitive bids on drugs, . etc etc.

        I don’t see the need for an “agency.” One big advantage is that it would cut government
        bureaucracy. UBI would be set by Congress.

        I’d write more but DISQUS keeps hanging up on me. Makes it a pain to correct typos with my poor
        eyesight. Google for several good articles that go further than I can here.

        • Warthog

          And how, exactly do “you communists” plan to “…abolish the market, selling, and money in general…..” ??? The only means communists have ended up with thus far is killing off or imprisoning anyone who disagreed with them. People have exchanged goods and services since the days of Neanderthal man. How do you plan to force them to do those exchanges according to your “scientific” plan?? Or will the reality be a burgeoning “black market”, as has happened in every attempt to impose Marxism attempted to date??

  • f sedei

    Mankind’s imagination is our saving grace and will be so in the future. Governments and societies will adapt accordingly to new demands.

  • GiveADogABone

    ‘I believe we have not yet seen an energy technology that is as potentially revolutionary as LENR.’
    I believe you may not have fully considered the steam engine and the associated technology of steam boilers.

    The development of the industrial revolution depended totally upon the combination of steam engine and boiler. Watt’s development of the steam condenser made the large scale development of a coal-fired source of motive power economic. Further development of the boiler/engine combination allowed the use of mobile steam locomotives, running on metal rails. Mass production in factories powered by steam engine/boiler combinations started major social upheavals as farm workers moved into factories and cottage industries failed in in the midst of mass social deprivation.

    For example, the medieval wool industry in England was the source of the country’s wealth for hundreds of years. This cottage industry disappeared in a few short years as the Yorkshire wool mills, powered by steam from local coal, took over all stages of production. The first steam engine in the Yorkshire wool industry was installed in Morley in 1795. Yorkshire bought up all the wool grown nationally to supply the mills and that need for yet more wool led to the Merino sheep being introduced to Australia.

    I know this history well because my forebears were wool merchants in Morley. In about 1660 they were walking from cottage to cottage, distributing raw wool and collecting finished pieces of cloth. The cloth was carried on their backs to market in Leeds. The business prospered and they became very wealthy with trading links through Hull and Liverpool, all based on family ties. The business finally failed after the first World War.

    The cotton industry in Lancashire is a parallel story. The mills were in Manchester, again powered by local coal, and the port of Liverpool imported raw cotton and exported the finished cloth to the world. Vast urban slums were created to house the mill workers and it is that bleak scene that inspired Karl Marx and the philosophy of communism. The Civil War in America caused a massive slump in business in Manchester because there was no cotton from the southern states.

    Steam engines started to power ocean-going ships in the 1830s and electricity generation at the end of the 1800s. With that history, LENR just changes the fuel to a heat releasing nuclear reaction, although direct production of electricity is possible. LENR will have to compete with current sources of power, including renewables and other nuclear reactions (fission or fusion). LENR’s development will be similarly long as it squeezes the competition out of the market.

    Once LENR can produce saturated steam at 320C, it will be on an equal footing with PWR reactors powered by Uranium/Plutonium fission. If LENR electricity is cheaper/easier than PWR, then the electricity generation revolution will start and that alone will finance the research to find other uses. I have no idea how the future will work out but I reckon there will be as much opportunity as threat to the human condition.

    [1:] While the Spaniard first patented a steam-operated machine for use in mining, an Englishman is usually credited with inventing the first steam engine. In 1698, Thomas Savery, an engineer and inventor, patented a machine that could effectively draw water from flooded mines using steam pressure.19 Mar 2014

    Who Invented the Steam Engine? – Live Science

    [2:] James Watt attempted to improve Newcomen’s steam engine in the 1760’s, and in 1785 he had done so, by using heat more efficiently with less fuel. Both coal and iron were crucial during the Industrial Revolution. Coal was used to power the steam engines and to make iron.

    Industrial Revolution – Steam Engines – Industrial Revolution Research

    • Frank Acland

      All great points, GADAB. You can’t overstate the importance of the steam engine and all that has sprung from it, but I still think LENR could surpass it in terms of effects on the world. But it’s just my opinion 🙂

      • GiveADogABone

        I guess it is a matter of timescales and accepting that technological advance is a slow, iterative process. I picked one thing where I thought LENR could get a firm foundation: making PWR nuclear reactors obsolete. If that makes electricity plentiful, that will be an extension of the steam engine story.

        District CHP heating with LENR is basically a steam engine with a use for the waste heat. We already have railways powered by mains electricty which could be generated by LENR. LENR for ships’s engines takes us back to the steam era with diesels as auxiliaries, if needed. Battery powered cars and lorries, recharged from the mains would be another LENR story. Domestic heating/cooling using heat pumps; electricity from the mains again. Process heat in factories. I ignore the military, who will do their own thing. Those suggestions keep LENR away from the general public.

        It is possible that the LENR powered charger could be in the car/lorry but that suggestion brings the general public into close contact with the LENR
        reactor. Perhaps LENR could be put into houses to provide space
        heating but safety might prevent that what with muons, neutrons and
        gammas being mentioned. Safety will be a big part of the story and
        we just do not know yet if that is safe. I guess my horizon is set
        by the safety question.

    • A practical demonstration of a steam engine was produced by Hero of Alexandria back when Jesus was still a carpenter’s apprentice. The technology languished for 1,600 years, but nobody disputed that it worked.
      Today we have yet to see a practical demonstration of LENR power.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I think that LENR can cause a construction boom because many people want bigger houses. Also roads that lead to those houses must be built, unless flying cars come first. A longer term trend is reduction of jobs, but LENR may create a temporary employment surge. Unless we start to colonise the solar system big time, in that case fast eocnomic growth may continue for a long time.

    • AdrianAshfield

      They may WANT bigger houses but “In 2014, home ownership dropped to a lower rate than it was in 1994, with a rate of 64%.” Wikipedia

    • invient

      I hope it doesnt take 30 years… we simply don’t have that kind of time. 20 years max, given current carbon emissions.

      I don’t think we have another long wave of capitalist development before the environment that supports us will itself collapse… this one will be different, whereas recent history still rings of financial collapses, where we simply revert back to more materialized forms of currency (and thus less liquid), this time we may very well experience a dark age, a reversion to old forms of production.

      If we continue on our current system, in the absence of LENR, then we will see that reversion of progress or hopefully something like your proposal… if LENR comes along before the next financial collapse, it may be able to prolong the capitalist system, but it is merely another bottle and as yeast are wont to do we will fill that bottle too, and probably within the same number of generations that it took for us to do so with oil.

      • Mike Rion

        I think 100 years would be closer to the mark.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        CO2 is good for plants and is a overall benefit to mankind.

        We had temperatures warmer then today during the medieval warming period. All of Europe prospered during that time. And those warmer temperatures occurred without any industrial CO2.

        Our CO2 output is not driving current temperatures in any noticeable or significant way – it really is a non-issue.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • radvar
  • radvar
  • radvar

    Do you doubt all the reports that something is going on in LENR, or only whether it can be commercially useful?

    • roseland67


      Define “all the reports”!

      There are reports every year about weeping statues of the Virgin Mary, Bigfoot, UFO’s, Loch Ness monster,
      alien abductions, 100mpg carburetor,
      I don’t believe them.

      Define “something big”!

      6+ years now and absolutely nothing from Rossi’s camp.

      Bupkis from Mizuno.

      ME356? Sorry nada.

      Elsfork? Zip.

      The Swedish team? Zero.

      As I wrote over 6 years ago, I’ll believe it when I see it, and up to now, for the last 6+ years, I have been right.

  • David L

    Advanced AI, robotics, 3D printing, LENR and other many technological advances will create fast and major changes in our lives.
    It’s similar to taking a psychedelic or getting kundalini awakening. They
    quickly bring up negative but mostly positive things, emotions, and feelings in
    us to deal with. And it up to us to deal with those changes and get
    through this trip, stable out and come out a new and better person and
    stuff to think about and process. In both cases you come out with a better understanding of your and your place in the world.

  • William D. Fleming

    Wanting to create jobs is the wrong way to look at things IMO, because from an overall perspective, having to do work falls on the liability side of the ledger. Robotics and other advances such as LENR hold great potential for mankind, and should be pursued full bore, with no concern for lost jobs. Rather than hang onto old technology, let’s change society.

    One option would be for governments to deal in stocks and bonds. This is not a far-fetched idea. Alaska has its Permanent Fund that is very successful. Norway has such a fund I believe, and Canada also. If the public as a whole owned a substantial share of the economy through a government owned public trust fund, then we would all benefit from whatever technology is developed. Carried to their maximum potential, such funds around the world could be used to eliminate public debt, end taxation, and eventually to provide a guaranteed subsistence income for every citizen, essentially eliminating the need for almost every social program.

    The big problem would be to obtain enough money for an initial nest egg and to keep the hands of politicians off that nest egg. Those are big problems.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      State funds can certainly be effective as long as they are managed by competent persons. However, the profit that they generate does not come from nowhere. The interest of state loans is finally charged to the tax payers of the respective countries. Dividends are indirectly paid both by the consumers via higher prices and by the companies’ employees via adapted salaries. Speculative profits are withdrawn from the accounts of other investors (which might as well be public institutions in some cases). So basically there is just a big redistribution, even if the profits are used for the benefit of a particular population. There will also be losers in this game – if not in the country itself, then elsewhere. Notwithstanding this, state funds might be the better alternative to a state-controlled economy, which is usually ineffective and therefore much more harmful to the people.

      • William D. Fleming

        Thanks for your response. I am trying to digest what you wrote. I think there would be an optimum percentage of government ownership that would give the desired benefit without infringing too much on individual wealth and incentive.

      • Mike Rion

        Modern society has always been about the redistribution of wealth. The important thing is to let it be done by free enterprise, capitalism and competition rather than letting governments choose winners and losers.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          That’s what my last sentence implied. A certain amount of regulation is necessary, though. But rather by defining the prevailing conditions than by direct interventions.

        • Warthog

          Uh, no. Modern society has been about a vast INCREASE in wealth. The only place where it has been about “redistribution” is socialist and Marxist entities, and ALL of those have been miserable failures . See Venezuela for the latest datum.

  • William D. Fleming

    If a Frenchman gets run out of France because of his religion, is he still a Frenchman?

  • nietsnie

    Frank, you mention that perhaps LENR will be a net job producer. But, consider that for each LENR installation there will be one fewer natural gas or electric installation (or both). The petro industry requires that oil and gas be drilled and removed from the ground, transported in mass quantities for large distances, refined, transported to distribution points, and finally consumed. Whereas while LENR will produce a boom in mining operations in Chile, realization of it will reduce the need for the petro industry to next to nothing.

    It simply requires more people and more infrastructure to produce energy from petro sources than it ever will from LENR. If you think the coal mining industry is put-out – just wait until the petro industry is mostly all out of a job. All the guys that check your meters and dig the holes for the pipes will be replaced by several grams of fuel that can arrive in the mail. Or – maybe the LENR gal will arrive to install it once or twice a year. Millions of people in the energy industry will be out of work.

    If you combine the effect of LENR with all the other upgrades in efficiency that are going to take place in the next few decades, the real crux of the matter has to do with the value of a person. What causes a person to be valuable? To feel valuable? Our entire system, that has catapulted us from savages to our present condition, is based upon the relative value of one person to another. We have competed, from the very beginning, to have more value than each other.

    At the lowest rungs there was always physical labor. Higher value was a mixture of intellect, education, familial advantage, and luck. Our parents worked and saved so that we could go to college to improve our position on that scale or maintain the position we were born in – to live on a higher rung than others did. Poor immigrants to this country satisfied themselves with the dream that their progeny would someday live to be educated so that they could live higher on the scale than they did. The American Dream is that if you work hard then you can rise on that scale. But – the scale has *always* been a relative thing. In order for some to rise, others had to fall. And there was always a reliance at the top upon the labor of those below them. There was always a hierarchy of value from top to bottom – but the bottom always had value to the top because without the bottom: the top could not exist.

    What happens when the upper rungs can handily exist independently from the lower ones? What happens when the lower rungs have not just *less* value – but *no* value? That’s the situation we’re headed toward. And the lower rungs will include over half the population. Those at the top will be fabulously wealthy for very little good reason – and so will their children, and their children. And those at the bottom will have *nothing* – just by the luck of the draw.

    I think this is the most scary subject for the continuation of mankind that there is. Because, without that societal belief that a conduit exists to change positions within the society – there can be no society. If you think about it there are only two possible outcomes.

    The first is that those at the top recognize that if left to go to fruition, the only possible result is catastrophic insurrection. So, they will make an amount of wealth available to each citizen just for existing. In the Star Trek universe one has the option of living comfortably while doing nothing. People get jobs in order to give their lives meaning. But, of course, jobs will be few and far between. So – will the vast majority have nothing to give their lives meaning? Maybe.

    Or, maybe, with infinite free time, they will invent ways for their lives to be meaningful that do not involve working for their survival. Art, or music, or construction of things that are not related to survival, or religion. Possibly doing good works for others? But – something. Because if the majority of people have lives without meaning, society cannot be sustained.

    The other possibility has been covered extensively in science fiction and involves jackboots and brutality and no freedom of will for those at the bottom. And the sense at the top that they are somehow chosen to be there – deserve to be there. This cannot be sustained for long either.

    Societies and interdependence and human value are the difference between what we are today and who we were coming out of the caves. The path that we have been on for all those millennia, that has served us so well, is coming to an abrupt end. We have to come up with a new paradigm that will sustain us into the future. If we are successful, we can populate the stars. If not – it all ends here.

    • Mike Rion

      Man, I think I may go into the back room and end it all. I’ve never heard such a bunch of doomsaying in all my many years. Of course it is a disruptive technology, but so was fire, steam, electrification, the automobile, the internet and now artificial intelligence. We will adapt to the future the same way we adapted in the past, gradually and efficiently and without destroying our civilization in the process.

    • Rene

      Civilization has been at these crossroads before. Whether steam engines, power looms, assembly lines, and automation, these technological and process changes devalue a wide swath of people to zero or near zero.
      But to date there has been resilience to those changes. Disruptive tech & processes take time to work through.

      • nietsnie

        I wrote this long diatribe and now I’ve realized that it’s not necessary and I have to throw it away. I hate that. But, here’s the bottom line. Although you’re right about the past, I think this situation (AI) is different than all previous crossroads. Different because whereas in the past what was required was for large groups of people to be retrained to do jobs that were more cerebral, or else also possibly to move from one place to another, whereas in this case becoming more trained or more highly educated won’t make a difference. AIs are shortly going to be better than us at reasoning and decision making. In the same way that they’ll be better so much better than us at driving cars that we’ll not be allowed to do that anymore, they’ll also be better than us at computer programming and engineering and medicine. The result of it all will still be to benefit us. But, we will no longer be the most efficient way to accomplish the goal. Someone who ran a hand loom might be taught to manage a power loom. But, what will the programmers, engineers, and doctors do now that their services are no longer required?

        • Albert D. Kallal

          I quite sure the ability of human wants is unlimited. I think life like female robots that make you a nice sandwich and then jump into bed with you is a larger threat to society and population – if we get such robots and don’t have a technology to make babies, then this will become a social crises.

          • Warthog

            “….if we get such robots and don’t have a technology to make babies, then this will become a social crises.”

            I suspect the artificial womb will be developed first. I read an article recently that said one had been successful in animal tests. I think it was in R&D magazine, but not sure of that.

          • nietsnie

            I read about that too.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, I kind of want that robot first!

    • Albert D. Kallal

      >> In order for some to rise, others had to fall

      No, that is not the case. What you need is a system that promotes the most social mobility.
      There not some top 3% cabal. Many people move in and out of that top area.

      Steve Jobs did not start out in the 3%. Either did Facebook, google or even Marta Stewart. And Jack Trammel (Atari, commodore) were high flyers at one time, and now are not even part of the tec industry.

      The fact that you create wealth does not mean someone else does not have wealth as a result (the exceptions are the rotten banking and stock trading system we have).

      I mean if during the summer you find an old rusted out Chevy roadster in your uncle’s barn, you are free to take that car and restore it. You might spend many hours. Now you driving around town in a car that is the ENVY of near everyone. No one would suggest that because you now have a really nice car, that someone else does not have a car! And you don’t have to restore the car, you might work at a coffee shop and buy such a car. The concept is the same:

      Every single pair of able hands can create things and contribute to society. The fact that you consume a burger does not mean that someone else does not get one. This is Marxism and socialist thinking at its best.

      These people want YOUR car or YOUR burger, and the ONLY way to justify such action is to fool everyone into thinking because you have that dazzling mint condition Chevy hot rod, or have a burger in your hand that someone else goes without that burger (or that car!).
      And hey is FAR easier to shame and guilt you into giving your car to someone else, or that burgers – or better yet take your labour and wealth with taxes (they are ALL an act of taking away YOUR labor).

      Anything you create is YOUR wealth you create and thus the act of consuming that burger does not mean you won and someone else goes without a burger and lost. If those other people want a burger then they are free to create that wealth and the farmers will rapid notice an INCREASE in demand for cows and meat – and buy golly they will start creating more cows.

      We have to “drop” this insane idea that because you worked and spent two years building that dazzling hot rod then someone else did NOT go without a hot rod because you have one. And if you want you could sell that hot rod for $50,000. Now you have the cash – but again you having that money is NOT due to you TAKING that money from someone else (it STILL represents the value you created). Be it the car you built, the work you done for that burger – it all the same.

      Because you make and create wealth (with your own business or just working at a coffee shop) does not mean someone else goes without. Don’t fool for this concept and ignore the difference between the fruits of your labor – it is your work and labour that creates the wealth – not that because you worked for a burger then someone else does not “win” and does not get that burger. If they want a hamburger then they have to go figure out what their best choice is in terms of creating wealth and trading that fruit of labor for the burger.

      You CREATE the wealth first and THEN buy the burger.

      Don’t fall for the trap of you having a nice car that you provided the wealth and labour to obtain with that of people wanting to take that nice car or burger away from you. They don’t go without a burger because you have one – they go without the burger because they not worked for their own burger.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • nietsnie

        >> In order for some to rise, others had to fall
        >Many people move in and out of that top area.

        That was my point.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          But they don’t necessary have to fall.

          Atari fell not because someone else had to win, but they simply made the wrong choices or could not adapt to the change in the industry. And yes as an industry matures and growth slows you often seen the smaller players go by the wayside or consolidate.

          The key concept here is that because someone rises, it does not necessary mean that someone else will or has to fall as a result.
          So sure two players in the same market segment that is not growing much means one wins at the expense of the other. No question. But grabbing market share is a different concept then that of creating wealth – creating wealth does not mean because you built a car or made a burger that someone else goes without that car or burger.

          The act of you obtaining a car does not mean someone else does not get a car. They are free to obtain that car provided they CREATE the wealth to purchase that car. The key concept is wealth creating is not an act of taking away from someone else, but creating that value and wealth. That creating of value can occur regardless of what someone else does, or does not do.

          However if Atari had seen the smartphone market first, then they could have grown by leaps and bounds and not effected computer sales of their competitors. The smartphone market really did not exist much prior to 2007. Same goes for the rise of tablets.

          So in a given market that not growning, then sure one company can win at the expense of the others – but that is a separate concept from your act of creating wealth. That act of creating wealth does not mean someone else goes without their ability or act of wealth creating.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • nietsnie

            Well, suppose there are 10 peanuts. I have 7 and you have 3. Then, later, you take 4 of mine. How many peanuts do I have? How many peanuts are there altogether?

            There is a market war going on between Apple and Google for market share. Why? Because only so many phones can be sold altogether (that’s like the 10 peanuts…). When an Apple phone is sold, that’s one that Google can’t sell (that’s like you taking 4 of my peanuts and there still are only 10 peanuts altogether…).

            However, I’ll grant you that wealth can be created without taking it out of the ground. And that the total amount of wealth in the world is constantly changing. But, the concept of how much results in *wealthy* is still relative. When there are 10 peanuts altogether – 7 is a lot. If there are 100 peanuts – it isn’t. By our standards King Arthur wasn’t very wealthy: he didn’t even have central heat or air conditioning or TV or a phone or transportation he didn’t have to feed. But, the farmers in his kingdom thought of him as wealthy: he ate meat every day! As recently as 1938 Herbert Hoover ran on the slogan, “A chicken in every pot” – because that was relatively well-to-do.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            But we don’t want to ignore how you obtained those 7 peanuts in the first place. Like the car restoration example, or you building a bird house – that is your effort that creates the money and wealth that you used to buy those 7 peanuts. (And this issue is so very often ignored by the socialists – they want your burger but they ignore how you worked to buy that burger in the first place).

            In most cases as I pointed out here in various too long posts people often don’t consider how the wealth was created in the first place to purchase those peanuts or whatever.

            I will certainly state that when looking JUST at some market separate from that of creating wealth, then sure one sale of an android phone likely means one less sale of an apple phone. However even in such an example the concept of labor and creating both phones still occurred. The “act” of creating that useful object with human creativity still occurred two times.

            And there likely many people in the world that would gladly purchase that other phone if their society and economy was built in such a way to allow them that “act” of creating wealth to purchase that phone. The real problem is those living in economies that are built the wrong way with the wrong polices – they can’t use their two hands in such a way to realize the wealth creating potential they have.

            As for taking things out of the ground? Well, we have a rather small population at this point in time. I mean when you drive between two towns, if you marked out a 40 mile by 40 mile plot of land, you can easy stand every human on the earth in that 40 mile plot with about 1 arm’s length between each person. The state of Texas could easily support the world’s population with a far lower density then a typical city today. So I don’t think we scratched the resources limitation even remote close at this point in time with such a small world population that can easily stand up and fit in a small 40 mile square plot of land.


            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada
            [email protected]

          • nietsnie

            If you must know, I inherited those peanuts from a relative I didn’t know who had no children of his own.

          • nietsnie

            Which probably explains why you were able to take four of them from me so easily…

  • FC

    Excellent post, Frank.
    It’s very well written and touches on many thrilling interconnected topics. I can’t think of another subject as interesting as this one. (Although maybe a commenter friend would like to add to it the need for a concurrent spiritual/moral development of humankind).
    Also, there are some really intelligent comments below.
    Congratulations to everyone.

  • georgehants

    In a sane World every job lost is a bonus to society allowing the needed work to be shared, to give more free time for all and to bring everybody to a minimum fair standard of living.
    This indisputable fact has been brainwashed out of society for many years by the dumb acceptance of ridiculous capitalist propogander to keep the masses wasting their lives in pointless jobs to keep them working and under control.
    The stupidity of so called intelligent members of society is laughable.
    It is only important to produce all needs and agreed luxury’s for all in the most efficient way, rewarding those who achieve more fairly.
    People talk about losing jobs as if it where a problem.
    Grow-up and Wake-up

    • Varmlandstok

      Either you earn your own money or you depend on other people for your living.
      If you earn your own money then you are free.
      If people are being forced to support other people for their living then they are not free.
      So it is all about freedom.

      • georgehants

        Varmlandstok, You clearly, like most do not understand what is written above, it is obviously based on clear common sense, True democratic freedom and not the completely biased system, as now.
        You use such mistaken words as “forced” “free”, without a clue what you are talking about.
        “Forced” is when a system where there can be plenty for all, “forces” many to remain poor and not be fairly rewarded when they are quite willing to do their fair share.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          But that just it, the instant you talk about fair share is the instant you have to decide how to take someone efforts and labour away from that person.

          It might be nice to talk about fantasy island, and perhaps you can stand in a tower and shout out the “the plane, the plane”.

          However your star trek fantasy is just pure fiction. You saying you want some fiction fantasy system that does not exist, and you can’t provide any examples or how you going to achieve your socialist utopia other than placing people at gunpoint to take the fruits of their labour away.

          You have to move from fiction to proving how you plan to implement your utopia without gunpoint and force.

          The socialist utopia you dream has been shown by history to fail over and over.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Warthog

            “You have to move from fiction to proving how you plan to implement your utopia without gunpoint and force.”

            I have argued exactly the above with George on many occasions. His typical response is “you are too dumb to understand the obvious”, and then he disappears.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            His position “feels” good – humans are driven by caring and sharing and those emotions in humans are a REALLY great aspect of the human existence. We should feel good about caring and the human experience. Humans “naturally” feel and have this caring emotion – it is a good thing to embrace.
            However these left use our caring emotion against us!

            The problem is they ignore that any of the systems they promote are ONLY achieved by the huge power of the state and that of pointing a gun at someone. I mean if 3 of us are in a room and I have a $100 in my pocket and we take a vote as to what to do with that money, the other 2 will vote to take that money away from me. This is what we call mob rule. It also why we have a constitution to protect people’s rights from that “natural mob rule” voting patterns.

            Everyone wants the schools, hospitals etc. – I think we have zero agreement on these things. While shaming and guilt tactics are a HUGE powerful and driving human emotion, the problem is these socialist systems are ONLY achieved by state run FORCED theft of resources from people, and such a system is enforced by gunpoint and jail terms. It is “wrong” to use such emotions against people WHEN they are not voluntarily.

            The problem here is this “virtue signalling” to make people feel sorry and sad – and then they hang you upside down by your ankles (or other choice body parts between your legs) and shake coins out of your pockets and grab them.

            The MAIN moral issue here is force vs consent – and these socialist hacks don’t accept their systems are based on an omnipotent state and use of force by gunpoint to achieve their goals of theft of your labor and resources.

            It is this issue of dishonesty on their part and their feel good virtue signalling to guilt and shame people to opening their wallets in the name of some supposed good is why I have such dislike for these types of people.

            Theft and use of force to take money from people is something these people DENY AND NEVER OPENLY speak about. At least be honest about how you’re going to achieve your goals.

            With such dishonestly on their part, why trust anything they say?

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Liberalism is a disease

      “work to be shared”, “minimum fair standard of living”, “indisputable fact”, “rewarding those who achieve more, fairly”. Your socialist/communism sucks. Your world view has been tried many times in many places around the world, ALL BAD. Starvation, dictatorship, yeah all that good stuff. You like your freedom and comfy life, uh-hum, capitalism. Best system around. Not perfect, just best. Your use of fairness is a very subjective word. Your definition and mine would be very different.

      • Warthog

        George has been spouting the same socialist garbage since his first posting in this forum. The fact that history says otherwise doesn’t matter a tap. Only he is omniscient enough to tell exactly what will happen. Such a mindset is what Pol Pot started out as and pursued to what is apparently the repeatable end for such efforts, millions dead.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          It is beyond silly. In one sentence they state how terrible it is a business makes money by hiring an employee and benefits by their labor, but in the next sentence they have ZERO problems with the government taking money and labor away from the very same people by the power of the state and by gunpoint (unless people here thinks taxes are optional). So it bad for business to use the labor force, but 100% ok for the government to take that labor and resources away by gunpoint? Who you work for is your choice. (or you start your own business – your choice). However your wealth and resources being taken by the government is not optional.

          At what point does too high taxes become slavery? I thought those left socialist were against slavery but they are then promoting a tax system at gunpoint to forcibly take away peoples wealth and the fruits of their labor – last time I looked taking peoples wealth and labor by force was slavery.

          I mean, hey, it would be really cool if a socialist state could work – but time and time again the result is poverty, starvation, long lineups for food and the loss of the middle class. Virtue signalling and “feeling” good about what one promotes does not actually feed people!

          If you trying to feed your people, create jobs, schools, and hospitals – the socialist state most defiantly not the answer – even if try as you may to “believing” that it
          will. It just don’t work and we have buckets and buckets of history and
          examples we need in this regard.

          It sure “feels” good to talk about job sharing – but the only way to do this is by force – and such force by gunpoint not really an act of charity anymore, is it?
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Warthog

            Unfortunately for your fantasy, the historical experiment has already been done….several times. With the same result as predicted by those “irresponsible pro-capitalism advocated”. Imaginary horses notwithstanding.

          • You really need to watch the video. A significant point in the video is that we can’t just look at history and assume that the same thing is going to happen again, in the future. The tech is changing things. Sometimes those who go against history are NOT doomed to repeat it.

          • Warthog

            I watched it. A complete waste of 14 minutes. What humans do that is unique is innovate/create. The probability that an AI will duplicate that is nil.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well the issue at hand is does socialism work? Why is Venezuela like some bombed out nuclear apocalyptic sci-fi movie?

      History shows the system of socialism creates long food lineups and creates poverty and starvation.

      A company does not hire someone because it is fun, they hire someone because that employee creates more wealth and value for that company then the cost of their wages. When this “deal” is broken, then no jobs will be created except by the state and government (whose employees don’t pay into the tax system – but consume taxes). Automation increases the value of each person – this the only means by which you can increase the standard of living for such people.

      As for work sharing? Well right now the ONLY way you collect taxes is at gunpoint and by force of the state and police. If you’re telling me that at the end of the year we could have a box in your tax form in which you “choose” by an act of freedom the amount you give to government, then you might have a valid point.

      Right now any tax scheme or work sharing scheme is achieved by the states use of force and by gunpoint. So the only means to archive your goals is by use of force, gunpoint and jail terms. So I not aware of any socialise wealth re-distribution system that exists without the threat of jail and use of guns by the state to take money away from people. So any socialist wealth re-distribution system you speak of is not an act of charity, nor is any such system voluntary – but ALWAYS achieved by force and gunpoint of an omnipotent state.

      And as for delays in LENR? What exactly are your socialist global warming foe doing with the 120 billion pledged at the last Paris summit to give people low cost energy? All they are doing is scooping up buckets of money and having a party on your dime. So billions spent by the state and you placing blame on one little guy like Rossi working 12 hours a day?

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Zephir

    /* If LENR really does prove to be a viable energy source, and it takes off commercially, there should be a surge in workers needed to manufacture and install LENR power systems, and this could certainly add jobs to the workforce.*/

    Of course that the adoption of LENR will open many jobs possibilities not just connected with LENR directly, but the future of inventions and findings is too often decided not by people who are waiting for their job – but these ones who have it and who already profit from it.

  • AdrianAshfield
  • Ophelia Rump

    If industry gets the technology for low cost energy first, then it locks their advantage over small producers.

    If the little guy gets the technology then it levels the playing field of expense a bit and mass production loses some of it’s cost basis advantage. LENR can have a democratizing effect on production providing employment opportunities for independents in a time when industry is shutting people out.

    Currently it is difficult for the little guy to compete due to volume buying cost practices on materials.
    Take the energy cost out of the equation and the boutique producers will flourish.

    • Axil Axil

      The oil and gas industry now support either directly or indirectly 10 million jobs. All those jobs are put at risk by LENR technology. That is not counting the green energy jobs supported by wind and solar energy.

      • GiveADogABone

        The cylinder and piston are clearly the central components of a reciprocating steam engine but claiming him as the inventor of a working steam engine seems a bit of a stretch. Again, claiming this achievement for France seems a bit of a stretch as well. Expelled (and that involved murderous violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
        ) as a Hugenot, his work was done in England and Germany.

        Nonetheless, an interesting observation.

        Denis Papin, (born Aug. 22, 1647, Blois, Fr.—died c. 1712, London, Eng.), French-born British physicist who invented the pressure cooker and suggested the first cylinder and piston steam engine. Though his design was not practical, it was improved by others and led to the development of the steam engine.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Well, I don’t think the oil industry is going away anytime soon. Even when oil clearly took over, we still saw steam engines used around the world up to the 1950’s – and running on coal.

        While I think ships will be the first “large” scale application for LENR, planes, and the vast majority of transportation will continue to use carbon based fuels for some time.

        I think that the recent breakthroughs in solid state batteries (that just means the liquid/paste electrolytes are replaced with a solid material) is going to occur BEFORE lenr takes off.

        Regardless, the key concept in a country is wealth creating and high standards of living require machines (automation) and affordable energy. The other MOST important concept of course is reduced government interference on such industry. (Less socialism). And the other key is correct trade policies that protect such industries.

        We have (at least for now) relative low cost oil. However an oil producing nation like Venezuela is dying not due to lower cost energy (which should help them), but is dying due to socializing and the government having nearly destroyed EVERY industry by nationalizing such industry. The result is something out of a sci-fi future movie like road warrior or the Postman. The country literally looks like future sci-fi movie in which the some country been bombed out of existence by a nuclear war. You see people pushing shopping carts with a few plastic containers of water and they are in rags.

        Yet the country is FULL of low cost energy (oil). The result of the collapse in Venezuela not due to energy or automation, but the wide spread adopting of socialist policies by the government. And even without much energy sources, we saw Japan rise out of living on a lava rock to achieve VERY high standards of living (and this high standard of living was achieved by the country “automating” labor, or better said industrializing their nation.

        The desktop computer and PC revolution is a great example of rapid change and HUGE gains obtained by adopting such machines to automate labor. In this case these machines automate the human and paper process in an office – not necessary manual human labour – but the result was the same). The computer boom of the 1980’s swanned MASSIVE job growth, MASSIE increase in productivity and this resulted in huge gains for private business by simply adopting machines to REDUCE human labor costs.

        I can’t think of ANY history example in which automation and adopting of machines LOWERED standard of living (except in locations where socialism had taken hold the economy). A great example is how most of Europe missed the HUGE job and computer boom that occurred in the USA tech industry – in Europe they missed near all of this revolution because they were far more socialized then the USA. Now that the USA is socialized likely more than even Sweden, then the USA is not likely to fare so well when the next technical revolution starts say due to LENR.

        I mean, if I told you that a machine and technology is coming that will eliminate 90% of your jobs, would you say this is good or bad?

        In fact the above occurred – and it was the mechanizing of farming. Prior to the industry revolution 90% of people worked in farming in some near direct capacity. With machines + low cost energy, we saw this equation FLIP near 100% reversed.

        So today, 90% of those people no longer work in farming because of automation and job losses. The result is anyplace we have automation farming (used low cost energy + machines), we now have for the first time more fat and obese people in the world then we have starving people. And walking into a store, the food is piled so high you cannot believe the selection of food, and MORE amazing is how low cost such food is (we spend the smallest % of our income on food than ever before).

        So we see in the past where 90% of the people working in a society were replaced by automation and machines (it called the miracle of farming). The result was an economic boom and increase in standards of living of the likes we NEVER seen.

        I see ZERO reasons why robots and LENR would not result in another round of HUGE wealth creating for mankind.

        A person on social assistance today has more food and even meat as compared to a baron with serfs farming around his castle.

        The massive wealth and boom of the 1980’s was directly related to industry and even small business adopting computers – the result was a massive reduction in the labour required to prepare things like payroll or financial reports.

        Remember, a business will hire you if you can create more wealth then what they are paying you. They want as much money as possible, and if each person they hire makes them money, then they will hire a billion such people and KEEP hiring until such time hiring people does NOT create more wealth then what that person costs. Adopting a machine means that each person can produce MORE and MORE wealth per given unit of labor.

        And the HUGE slimming down of middle management in companies was also due to computers. Ordering, inventory, and customer relationships has been massive automatized by computers.

        The only real destruction in the economy is due to bad trade practices and anti-business policies. So all of the computer manufacturing that was occurring in the 1980’s has now been outsourced and gone to the pacific rim from the USA.

        Automation of its own accord means in place of picking potatoes all day by hand, you can now become a golf teacher. Or mow someone’s lawn, or start a restaurant. Or become a landscaper and build someone a beautiful yard. Or start a school to teach gifted children. Or start a cooking school. Or start a company that teaching healthy living. Or a company to build and bring affordable water systems to 3rd world countries.

        Freeing up labor near ALWAYS causes huge increases in production and thus results in huge increases in standards of living. The only issues that thwart or destroy the wealth creating of such automatons is bad trade and bad socialist policies by governments.

        LENR has the potential to gift mankind MORE than automation and computers in terms of increased standards of living.

        Low cost energy is key to anyone standard of living. The MORE energy you have to use per person, the higher standard of living potential you have available. So in place of picking potatoes all day, you build LENR powered green houses. (Or you buy a small LENR greenhouse and grow flowers, or even tobacco!). Or start a shrimp farm in a pond that is heated by LENR. All of a sudden everyone will be able to afford shrimp on a daily basis!

        I think indoor growing and LENR are a match made in heaven.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • FC

        For what it’s worth, here’s Warren Buffett’s opinion on the impact of AI on US jobs:


        • Omega Z

          Buffett is mostly following the hype. Reality wont be anything like predicted. This same prediction was made in the early 80’s. While a lot of bots and computers were introduced, it never reflected the prediction. If it had, the current prediction wouldn’t be necessary.

    • Warthog

      They already do. The computer revolution coupled with global digital connectivity allows small businesses to work globally with a facility that took a company like Caterpillar to do previously.

      I was part owner of a four-partner company with about four employees. We did microfluidic analytical chemistry. We developed products for and sold instrumentation in Korea, Japan, China and many countries in Europe. I am now retired, but don’t try to tell me the little guy cannot compete. Ultimately, it is all about brains and creativity. And I don’t think any AI will ever duplicate the human facility to innovate.

  • Warthog

    Oh lord. Still spouting debunked theoretical Marxist bafflegab, I see.

    • Omega Z

      We should do Orso a favor and see to it he is inserted into the matrix when it becomes a reality. Then he can live his dream…

  • Bob Greenyer
    • georgehants

      Afternoon Bob, you are a better writer than me.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks, if I had had more time, I would have written a shorter comment.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Bob, that is an interesting article. I rather doubt that crypto currency is a practical solution to avoiding inflation caused by UBI. Things like bit coins are valued against some other currency and there are nowhere near enough of them for UBI.
      That the banks will gather it all up is overstating it although I do view banks as inherently parasitic. The overlooked fact is that there needs to be consumers to purchase all the goodies being made in the new automatic factories and to pay for increasing the number of robots and systems.

      Somehow you have to leave greed in the equation or the system, like communism, won’t work. This has to be balanced with some humanity or there will be a growing number of humans who are truly destitute.
      Already there are 0.5 – 2 million (depending who you believe) Africans without electricity, dying each year as a result of air contamination from indoor cooking. Yet the green environmentalists have managed to persuade the World Bank not to fund new coal fired power stations to save the planet. Maybe they will allow New Fire but somebody will still have to pay for it. As robotics and AI grow the undeveloped countries will suffer just as much as the West because here will not need at all for their cheap labor.
      Likewise the article is too optimistic about removing oil form the equation will stop wars. The military industrial complex is too powerful and needs money too badly to let that happen, They will manufacture reasons for sure. What good have any of the 13 wars the US has fought in the last 30 years done us? Not to mention destroying whole countries and killing and wounding millions.

      • Axil Axil

        Mastery of the laws of the universe when taken to its ultimate extreme produce a possible future as predicted on the movie :Forbidden Planet:


        Since the Krell’s Great Machine can project matter “in any form” and for “any purpose” it has the power to create life. Thus, the Krell’s self-destruction can be interpreted as a cosmic punishment for misappropriating the life-creating power of the universe and exposes the danger that the mindless primitive can reick on others when the laws of nature are subverted to selfish ends, This is why Commander Adams says in his speech to Altaira “… we are, after all, not God.”

        • artefact
          • HAL9000

            The challenge of the impact LENR is the speed with which mobile systems will optimize or replace human workers. Over sixty percent of the population in India is currently engaged in agriculture, as was case at the beginning of the last century in the U.S. Today however, that figure is two percent in the U.S., thanks to automation. How will India’s seven hundred million workers adapt when the number of workers in agriculture plunges to just a few million workers due to automated farms and transportation? How do you transition seven hundred million people into other industries a contracted period of time?

            Perhaps LENR can play a role in the transition by facilitating “off-grid” independence of local communities, using cheap energy to sustain themselves. This would reduce the need to provide supplementary support from centralized government. One dedicated “off-grid” organization is already participating in the MFMP testing.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            I think one issue is “how fast” you move people from farming and agriculture to an economy primarily based on industry and manufacturing goods. So the “speed” of disruption can be an issue. Too fast could hurt.

            The introduction of the steam locomotive was so beyond ground breaking that it hard to imagine. Right along with the steam engine was the FIRST widespread use of electricity. And that technical innovation was the telegraph. How ironic that one of the first commercial uses of “electricity” (long before consumer electric devices such as lamps and stoves etc.) was for the transfer of information. And of course this resulted in the battery industry booming in an era when NO OTHER battery powered devices even existed.

            A farmer living in the north of Alberta in a rather far north Canadian homestead at the turn of the last century could pull out their Sears catalog, order a sewing machine (they were pedal powered). The local telegraph station would send the order to Sears and Roebuck in Chicago. Within about 1-2 weeks you had your sewing machine. In fact this rivals how well eBay or Amazon worked today but were talking about an era in which no consumer electronics existed and in fact no consumers even had electricity!

            More amazing is just like how eBay etc. allowed entrepreneurs to spring up creating pottery, art or just about anything?

            Well much the same occurred way back then in the time of the steam engine and the telegraph. We used to have a property just off of Pigeon Lake (a lake about 1 hour out of my city of Edmonton). On that property you can see remains of what used to be an old rail line. The guy had some boats he would send onto the lake and pull out HUGE amounts of whitefish. He packaged up the fish on ice and it was delivered to restaurants in Chicago.

            All the above innovation and job creating and HUGE opportunities for any entrepreneurs was occurring in the horse and buggy period.

            I see little issues with India building up their industry and infrastructure. In fact their roads and electric system is holding them back VERY badly. And no question with such large amounts of “temperate” weather, then solar on roofs works very well.

            So India is well posed to adopt significant migration from agriculture to industrial – the only hold back is how well the country will be run and how well its policies support such industry.

            In many ways such countries can leap frog and skip parts of the traditional industrializing process. LENR and low cost energy has earth shattering ramifications for such countries that are starved for more energy of which LENR can provide.

            I see nothing but huge opportunities for LENR – not much different then some silly farmer in Alberta pulling fish from a lake and selling that fish to restaurants in Chicago 1600 miles away – and this was during the horse and buggy age.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Bob Greenyer

        Crypto currencies, like Bitcoin, are fungible, that is to say, you can divide them up into ever smaller and smaller bits as the value of that which you hold increases, it scales to meet the demand for it but your holdings appreciate.

        I left capitalism in there, the capitalism to provide the best services, entertainment etc.

        The MIC is only able to fund wars because of the fiat system.

        • Omega Z

          So how did they fund wars before the fiat system?

          • Bob Greenyer

            They were on a much smaller scale, cheaper and many did it just because of a leader or cause.

            Swords are re-useable, bullets need to be replaced.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          I actually much agree how bitcoin is revolutionary. And the increase in the value of a bit coin unit is astounding (I really missed a HUGE opportunity). And REALLY scary is that if some countries have a currency meltdown, you could see bitcoin used as a currency by such counties to receive payment and ship goods for international trade – all isolated from the pitfalls of a paper currency. If this occurs, then current bitcoin prices will seem small!

          The concept and ideas of bitcoin are revolution – and for countries with currency problems, we could see STUPID prices for bitcoin units if such countries have no choice but to adopt bitcoin for international trade.

          Continue your great work – I want my flying DeLorean with a Bob Greener “Mr. Fusion” that you tested and showed the world that LENR is our future – you will become more popular then Doc Brown! (around here you already are!).

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Bob Greenyer

            if you had put $10,000 into bitcoin in 2010, you would be sitting on a $145,000,000 gain.

            WIth Japan about to make it a ‘valid’ currency in July and Russia doing the same, and with limited supply and divisibility, there could be a very large upside still. In the mean time it will be very volatile.

            I cannot guarantee anything but effort and will to see this through.

      • LilyLover

        Great Movies :Forbidden Planet: & :Logan’s Run:
        Let’s have all the goods from it sans the unneeded bad.
        Funny it is that only the parasite class preaches to strive for 100% employment and the most hard working and smart people strive for zero to five percent employment. Planetwide joblessness is a sign of evolution of human species. Maximal employment is indicative of futile savagery.
        Quality life with free frolicsome time with UBI of ~$100k/year shall become the baseline. Beyond that will be competence proportional gains.
        Elimination of desparation for all is not the same as socialism.
        Parasites need fake-capitalism to show that fake-socialism was a failure.
        Your air-ticket is not dependent on your weight – you are socialist.
        Your currency dilution right / self issued equitable credit creation right to buy properties to seek rent is not equally distributed. There is no democracy of capital creation. You are not capitalist.
        Yes, every job lost is a bonus to society.
        Anyone who talks about “taxes” or “whol’ll pay for” simply does not understand human social construct, Economics, and Science.
        Sample solution 1: Get paid to stay healthy soldiers will do all the corporate work. Cops will do all the menial tasks. Those who commit crimes will be made cops. High skill and high quality work performed will be a ticket to freedom from copdom. Creative geniuses in the society will flourish through democratized patenting. They will also improvise efficiencies to minimize the need for cops and soldiers, and create a framework for creating generations of loving caring children.
        Capitalism is not just best – it’s merely best for the looters. Looting $90 and running away vs looting $100 and gifting $10 – that’s the nature of pure looting vs today’s capitalism. If you are the one gifting $10, you must feel it’s the best. If you are the one being looted from, then, it’s not good. Looters have time to spread louder propaganda. Producers must crumble to death. & Yes, your definition of fair seems to be – ‘might is right, as long as I am mighty’.
        Free money, free vacations, all free for the takers! You think you’ll go berserk with too much happiness? Raise your hand.
        Meaning to life does not come from working. “Work brings dignity” is propaganda of the parasites.
        Inefficiency must die. Incompetent small producers ought to be extinguished. Let them have a happy life. Let industrial efficiencies alleviate stupid’s self inflicted wounds. LENR should have ‘a democratizing effect on people’s quality of life’ not on ‘providing employment opportunities for independents’. Stupid must face the competition or stay content at UBI. “When industry is shutting people out.” – is a good thing, although not instantly. Wanna be “boutique producers” should flourish based on merit, quality or a specialized service, not on handed-out anti-efficiency protection.
        As a society, we have carried the dead weight of ~50% polpulation historically. Abundance will permit dead weight of about 95%, easily.
        “Moral hazard” is not that “free money is bad” but that “people must perform work to live comfortably”.
        “LENR and AI complement each other and hasten the assault on human employment!” – not hasten the assault; it’s accelerate the liberation of.
        “US has fought 13 wars in the last 30 years at a cost of $12.4 trillion, so it is a good bet there will be another couple of wars in the next twenty years.” – maintain parasitic leverage of currency strength has been the purpose of wars. Democratizing and ubiquitizing the cheap energy laser weapons will make warmongering a history.
        When it comes to jobs, the energy and robotics revolution will truly bring out and extinguish the virtual-work-menial-jobs.
        By that they’ll open your eyes about how trivial your “source of dignity” had been.
        Amazon teaches us, robotics is cheaper with cheaper energy. Therefore robotized factories for energy producing E-Cats are a natural must. The jobs lost in energy sector may be replaced by 10% new jobs. But all in all, feel happy that sector by sector, worthless sectors of economy will be deleted and man will begin to enjoy the abundance.

        • cashmemorz

          Then there is Stephen Hawking’s prediction of us humans doing ourselves in within 100 years. Too many bad guys getting their hands on cheaply powered high powered weapons. ISIL for instance, won’t go away just because there is abundance. They won’t allow “heaven on Earth” since that is against their beliefs. So what do do with their ilk? Round up the clerics that preach that line? The religious right will fight a war against that kind on grounds of religious freedom. Idiocy cannot be legislated nor “shown their wrong ways” Ideas die hard. In science ,we see that the old guard has to die off before new ideas can take hold. In fanatic religion there is a different paradigm. Dogma for dogmas sake. Also others such as ANTIFA, a political fanatisism. Such will also have time, as in unoccupied hands will get into mischief. Humans have freedom,but that freedom can go into negative territory when it is not tied to the natural order, such as the need to take care of one’s progeny. With too much to allow such care to be guaranteed there is no need to take care of ones progeny. This leads to one losing ones way. Avocation for its own sake? There are too many unknowns on the way to nirvana.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, please clarify, are you saying we should not move forward to create a more caring and sharing World because ——-
            “There are too many unknowns on the way to nirvana.”

          • cashmemorz

            ISIL and ANTIFA will even out the playing field between the positive use of LENR and the negative. We might have to taker the bad with the good as always. Just that the bad will be worse then ever. So we have a step forward with LENR and its uses where those uses are for the good of all. Then a step back by others who think they are using LENR for the good according to their ideology as in the means justifies the ends. Same old same old. Can’t get away from the diversity of human endeavors in either direction, good or evil.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, how about we work for good rather then evil

          • cashmemorz

            I’m willing to work for what we both understand as the good, as many others are. It is the others that think along other logic or different kinds of ideals that get in our way. Its hard just talking to them. They want their way respected even if their way hurts those who think differently.

          • georgehants

            We all can all choose good or Evil.

          • LilyLover

            The beauty of the LENR Laser Weapons is this: Maximal defence; no offence.
            Shielding and ballistics disabling capabilities are extremely well. Annihilating and destructive capabilities are minimal. This leads to defence against the worst of the enemy but offense only as good as you previously had.
            Thus, the societies that prosper using LENR, merely by prosperity, disintegrate the membership of the subscribers to the “cruel-ideologies”.
            This is good for all. It is not “same old” however much you might wish for. We do not have to take ANY bad with the extra good.

          • LilyLover

            The beauty of the LENR Laser Weapons is this: Maximal defence; no offence.
            Shielding and ballistics disabling capabilities are extremely well. Annihilating and destructive capabilities are minimal. This leads to defence against the worst of the enemy but offense only as good as you previously were.
            I.e. parasitic leverage is eliminated and additional cruelty is not awarded.
            Thus, the societies that prosper using LENR, merely by prosperity, disintegrate the membership to the “cruel-ideologies”.
            The real opposition you have is not against progress, but more against losing existing parasitic leverage.

          • Stephen

            I prefer “hyper powerful neutrino weapons”… you get shot and the neutrino bullets pass right through you without doing anything.

            At the same time due to conservation of momentum the gun flies right out of the shooters hands, hits him on the head and knocks him unconscious. 😉

          • Chapman

            OK, now THAT right there is some funny s#@t, I don’t care who you is…

            That one made me laugh out loud, and then had me taking the time to think it through. A twofer! Humorous AND scientifically insightful!

            Kudos Buddy!

          • nietsnie

            Ummmm… I don’t think so… Neutrino’s have almost no mass. Almost no mass implies almost no kick.

          • Chapman

            I get excited when Hawking talks about getting serious about colonization. And I think the topic lends itself marvelously to the discussions here regarding the effects of LENR, Social Organization, Political structures, and the advent of other concurrent technologies.

            Off-Earth colonies, whether orbital, or Lunar/Martian/Asteroid, requires the answers to most ALL of the issues we are addressing here, in this thread. The actual TRANSPORT issues are best left to NASA, and egghead rocket scientists with pocket protectors, but the real challenges for self-sufficiency are Energy, manufacturing from base materials, and Human Psychology.

            The reality is that right now, even though we dreamers love to fantasize about the do-ability of isolated colonies, we simply do not have the technical resources to make it possible.

            I would love to see real efforts put out NOW to solving the secondary issues. The rockets will come in time, but right now we can work on one simple question:
            What is needed in order for 30 persons to be fully self sustaining if they were loaded into a set of shipping containers, along with everything we propose to give them, and dumped unceremoniously in Siberia, or Antarctica, or even UTAH?

            If we can’t do it in the Mohave Dessert, then we sure as hell can’t do it on Mars!!!

            I think the Antarctic is the best proto-colony test site. There is the cold, which serves as a good analog for atmospheric issues. There is plenty of oxygen, but we are kind of accepting that oxygen generation is a core tech from NASA that will be available when the time comes. Under the ice there is an abundance of rock, which is the primary material that colonists will have to work with as a starting material. The cold also assures that all food production will need to be entirely human engineered, so there will be no cheating and just planting crops in an open field, which colonists will certainly be unable to do, so hydroponics and protein synthesis will be a must.

            They would be dropped off with the makings of a fundamental survival structure, but the goal would be to expand with local materials into a full fledged base.

            They will need to be able to address medical needs. They will need to have a social structure and means of conflict resolution. They will need to be able to manufacture all textiles and useful materials for clothing, lifestyle, and heavy manufacturing such as machinery and electronics.

            Entertainment and Technical data are all available via the web, and that link would be provided, just as it would be available to colonists (only without the delay!), but they would have to get along with only a single shipping container of additional supplies and materials every year, so they would have to choose wisely.

            When we can actually seed, and maintain 10 or so earth bound colonies of this type, THEN we would be ready for off-planet attempts.

            Before Mars, we must conquer Antarctica, the Sahara, and the Marianas Trench…

          • Vinney

            Why waste your time on these pursuits, the moon and Mars offers challenges uniquely their own.
            Next, why human habitation, when most of the ground work can be done by robots (including considerable scientific exploration).
            This is where AI and the forthcoming Robotics revolution can assist mankind. These ‘bespoke’ robots are way too expensive to be used for replacement of human labour, but instead could be relentlessly exploring the Mars environment.
            They would be agile and intelligent enough to create the machines for exploration of minerals, construction and starting the terraforming of Mars.
            Water can be harvested from icey comets, captured and parachuted in.
            Before we get to a widespread affordable Robotics revolution, we can think of LENR providing rudimentary cooking and heating to communities (over a billion people) without reticulated electricity ( or the even greater number with un-reliable power).
            Rossi can introduce rudimentary LENR devices as Cookers/ovens/water and space heaters into the developing world using the IP he disclosed to IH, without disclosing his most valuable QuarkX technology, as these economies have very little patent protection mechanisms.
            In fact he can sell this technology in IH’s designated markets of China and USSR as well. They also offer few avenues of sueing on patent infringement.
            Taking advantage the lack of desire on IH ‘s part to engage in industrialisation.
            He would be wise however to make his technology very difficult (or prohitively expensive) to copy.
            These markets also don’t have the litigious consumer (or VC investor) nor powerful EPA or regulatory bodies of the USA and EU.
            But I guess you will need the blessing of the local governor. dictator or oligarch.
            Hey, if they don”t oblige, the next district (Country) dictator will allow and that population will flourish.

          • cashmemorz

            GIven the statistics of 30 to 50 percent of interplanetary vehicles have any number of mishaps from mechanical break down to loss of navigation, the best way to explore the cosmos is with robotics. We don’t want to lose 30 to 50 percent of populated vehicles on the way to Mars or elsewhere. Other than robotics the only viable way to sent any living thing is the way insects do it. Sheer numbers of individuals, that on each ones value/benefit does not count. It is the statistical over all average of groups numbers succeeding that gets the job done. If we go that route then we need expendable persons willing to be part of the cosmic lottery of who actually gets to their destination. That puts a large kink into human exploration, not to speak of actual colonization. The method, that I see, to mitigate this is going anywhere in small steps. First, many people in long term Earth orbit. Of those who adapt succeed in surviving, they can go on long elliptical orbits beyond Earth part way to Mars. After many such attempts the casualty rate is assessed to see exactly what is causing losses. Then further towards the ultimate goal in such step wise fashion. This i svery time consuming and overall more costly in dollars but less costly in lives. That is if we want to minimizes lost lives towards that goal. A large step method, as is currently planned for one trip, is riskier. Any human losses in the way it is planned now will get fewer later candidates willing to take the risk. Then the whole colonization attempt gets set back decades or longer. So this kind of exploration is very long term in development. Setting dates for when we want to do it is contrary to what the cosmos allows. We are still in the infancy of space exploration and are impatient. All new things carry some form of risk. LENR, with its muons and other unknown radiation or even lack of basic theory is another hurdle to be over come before we let our impatience cause unnecessary loss of lives. After all, it is to save lives that LENR is being developed. Not just the impatience to get a more luxurious live for those in the developed world.

  • Axil Axil

    One implication of the coming LENR revolution is how in the longer term, transmutation of elements will transform mining and manufacturing.

    LENR can produce elements in any amount directly from a universal feedstock. A LENR based fully automated manufacturing process will feed waste of any sort into the manufacturing process on the input side and a 3D printing technology can produce any product as output. The downside of this tech is that mining and manufacturing jobs will become redundant. The code upon which the 3D manufacturing process will be facilitated with powerful code creation tools that make the fabrication of products easy during Imagineering. These tools might eventually become voice directed.

    The concept of the star trek replicator might become reality within the lifetimes of our grandchildren.

    • cashmemorz

      What one can imagine is already made or at least is on the drawing board. Mitsubishi, as confirmed by Toyota, has a working initial prototype of transmutaion. If they aren’t developing it towards an industrial version, one would wonder why not. After that 3D printing is so much engineering, and voila, the replicator. So it looks realistic to say, instead of grandchildren, more like our children will have the replicator or sooner.

    • nietsnie

      Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.

  • Andrew

    With every innovation there is always talk of job loss. Automobile vs carriages, refrigerators vs ice boxes….. The economy and labour pools always adjust. As new jobs are created with the innovations.

    • psi2u2

      Many economists believe, with good reason, that this old pattern will not repeat itself with this wave of robotization and computerization. Huge swaths of the population are going to be put out of work in a very short period of time. Unless we have income sharing in place, we are doomed.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Well, most economists are usually wrong in their predictions. Take peak oil for a great example.

        There nothing inherent in this pattern that any different from the past – even relative recent past. It “might” be different, but we not seen any evidence or example that would support or suggest this theory is valid.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • psi2u2

          I stand by my position that the rate of computerization and robotization will create a crisis in modern economies that cannot be overcome by purely capitalistic solutions.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, you not provided any real history examples or any evidence to support this position. This don’t mean you right (or wrong), but without supporting evidence for the theory, then it remains a theory with little supporting evidence.

            I am 100% open to problems that can occur due to automation, but right now history clearly on the side of amazing benefits of such industrialization.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • psi2u2

            That’s the point, Albert (and by the way I always enjoy reading your very thoughtful and well-informed posts) – that we may be at a cross-roads in our evolution as a species that is beyond economics as we have known it. Reasonable people may and do disagree on that point, but there’s plenty of reason to think that the automation/computerization/robotics revolution will soon reach a point at which the idea that new jobs will be created in time to offset the old ones is no longer operative, because the “new” jobs, like the old ones, have already been automated before the human worker even has a shot at them. If that happens, the whole communist-capitalist distinction in which we place so much faith will lose a great deal of its relevance.

            This is why many nations of the world are already experimenting with a so-called “citizen wage,” which guarantees a minimal income to all citizens.


          • Vinney

            But what do you think of my idea of a rollout of ‘low temperature e-cat technology’, it’s already in the hands of his ‘former’ (and commercially dormant) partner IH, but Rossi will introduce the world to his technology using the developing world needs.
            You also cannot get a more ‘altruistic’ entry into the market.
            In these same Markets it would be pointless for IH to pursue their legal and stalling tactics, when these people desperately want to elevate their living standards.
            It will be incredibly frustrating for them at every turn, as their intention is to ‘stall’ the rollout (assisted by the bidding of the elite), but instead Rossi is raising everyone’s standard of living to western standards but using only one hundredth of the traditionally required energy resources in coal, oil and gas.
            The environmental impact of this rollout would make ‘western’ observers green with envy.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I don’t see ANY fundamental difference between a company adopting a robot or adopting a computer. The both serve to increase worker productivity.

    We used to do payroll by hand. Now one machine is “taught” how to do those calculations and in place of 5 or 6 people doing payroll, you only need one.

    And learning self-taught robots been around for 30+ years. And MOST of them for painting and coating parts are placed in “learning” mode in which a skilled operator paints or coats the part, and then from that point on the machine repeats those steps.

    And while up to the 1970’s only LARGE companies could afford computers, when smaller business could afford them, we saw a huge boom in wealth creating. I see absolute ZERO difference in adopting small machines that can repeat payroll, or repeat smaller manufacturing tasks – the result in every case I can see has always been increased standards of living.

    There nothing different then those skilled payroll people writing all those checks and doing the math by hand.

    I mean the canning food industry became VERY automated by the 1920’s. The fact that “muscle” was replaced in these large food canning factories did not make humans obsolete.

    In what history example did such adopting of machinery to replace human muscle did not result in benefits to mankind?

    So the ONLY fundamental question here is automation of labour and muscle as compared to typical “mental” jobs ANY different?

    The internet ALREADY made that change. The number of telephone operators in the 1950 was HUGE. In fact in Canada Purolator curious used to have a building with about 10 floors of people answering the phone (for package tracking). All of that was replaced with an on-line web site. S

    So massive changes from telephone operators, or not having a ROOM full of people taking orders for eBay or Amazon has ALREADY occurred. Same goes for automated banking and bill paying. In fact I think since a RATHER small % of people are involved in actual manufacturing now, then those small robots will have far less impact then the video claims. And in regards to AI, once again all those telephone operators, and ordering people on eBay never were required and the technology has already done MOST if not ALL of the damage in job losses.

    LENR should however give rise to an “iRobot” type of walking robot that can and should deliver your pizza.

    And I remain skeptical that self-driving cars will be on the roads within 5 years. In fact I think we still 10 years away. And once again I see nothing but new huge opportunity for self-driving cars. Already millions take the bus or subway – fail to see how self-driving cars are different in regards to jobs then the steam train 100 years ago competing with horses or oxen. Self-driving cars can and will create amazing opportunities.

    And no, the cars do NOT drive without human intervention. On average the self-driving cars require HUMAN intervention once every mile! (Yes, every mile!!!). So such cars have driven 100,000 miles, but that ALSO required 100,000 human interventions. Even the ubur cars can’t even pull over – the driver must do this task. We are MUCH farther away for self-driving cars then you are being lead to believe.

    I mean, who at all is surprised that a skilled task like doing payroll was replaced 30+ years ago? Self driving cars should increase our standard of living.

    And who on earth said that automating payroll going to force people to be creative?

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • psi2u2

      Except that working people got only a tiny percentage of that increased productivity in the value of their labor.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Not so simple and not true.

        The proportion of the developing world’s population living in absolute poverty (i.e., living on less than $1.25 per day in 2005 dollars), was halved from 52 percent to 26 percent between 1981 and 2005.


        Ironically, higher food prices, partly because of the diversion of crops to biofuels in response to REALLY STUPID climate change policies, helped push 130-155 million people into absolute poverty in 2008. This is equivalent to 2.5–3.0% of the developing world’s population.

        Life expectancy in developing countries increased from 25-30 years in 1900 to 41 years in the early 1950s to 69 years today.

        Child labor in low income countries declined from 30 to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003

        Powered machinery has not only made child labor obsolete in all but the poorest societies, but it allows children to be children and, equally importantly, to be more educated in preparation for a more fulfilling and productive life.

        GDP per captia from 1800 increased from about $250 by a factor of 40 times by the year 2000.

        What makes these economic gains even more astounding is that there has been a simultaneous population explosion.

        There are six times more people in that time frame but EACH person has EIGHT times MORE food and clothing ad housing and travel and books etc.

        People gone from serfs on some landowner to having incredible and ASTOUNDING increases in wealth. This is all due to technology and “mostly” due to adopting energy. We don’t use human or animal muscle to do work – but use energy + machines.

        According to IRS statistics?
        The bottom 20% of wage earning in the USA within 15 years we find that 90% of those people are NOT in that bottom wage earning group anymore.

        Because Steve Jobs went out and made millions does not mean you did not get those millions. I explained this well in my other post – when you create wealth it does not result in someone else losing that wealth. And Steve Jobs did not start out as some rich group or cabal with large sums of money. People move in and out of that group.

        The idea that your next door neighbour started some tech company and is worth a billion has ZERO effect on your money and wealth you have and create. This wage disparity is pure Marxists crap. I will full out state that the only real
        excepting to this rule is parts of the financial system – it is corrupted and
        is a system slavery and takes away wealth from the system.

        The main reason for wage inequality in the USA is the loss of good manufacturing jobs and the resulting decimation of the middle class – but that’s not due to wage inequality, but the result of poor economic policies and bad trade.

        I can type on for pages but the KEY concept in any society is to ensure wage mobility – this is why I am so dead set against these ever increasing minimum wage increases – they are going to decimate the working poor in inner cities – as if history shows we not abused these poor inner city groups and pushing up minimal swages essentially destroy all hope for such people ESCAPING their poverty (so I guess people pushing those high min wages HATE these people and want to enslave them and their children from escaping poverty). People think such policies are good when they achieve the exact opposite (it causes more wage inequality).


        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Warthog

          “It is getting pretty annoying that so many pro-capitalism advocates
          can’t seem to get this, in my opinion, at least, relatively simple

          See my above posting re the scientific method. Your position is speculation and nothing more, with no hard evidence to support it. Ugly facts tend to kill beautiful theories. Alfred has presented MANY facts (some of which I knew, and some of which were new to me).

          • For god’s sake, I wasn’t even responding to you. Well, I’m not bound by science. Anyone who is following cold fusion, or any other controversial area, should know that science gets things wrong, sometimes, and other forms of reasoning can get things right, even if the science is practiced perfectly.

            As far as my position and speculation…well, I don’t think that it is just speculation to say that when people are hard at work trying to come up with machines to, NOT aid, but TOTALLY REPLACE humans…well, it ain’t just speculation to say that, at some point, the humans will probably be replaced. If you think that’s not going to happen, then I think that YOU have a burden to show that to be the case, and do it WITHOUT appealing to some dopey idea that because it has always happened a certain way in the past it will necessarily always keep happening the same way in the future.

          • Warthog

            So science is dopey?? The SOLE thing that has resulted in a massive increase in global societal wealth, and mass decreases in virtually every index of measurement of “bad things for humanity”. Albert has provided excellent evidence outlining the REAL data.

            The problem with cold fusion is that the real scientific method WAS NOT FOLLOWED. There was nothing that science “got wrong”.

            I personally watched the first wave of “robots are gonna replace humans” back in the 1980’s, while working for one of the world’s biggest chemical companies. A company (Zymark) came up with a robot that was going to totally revolutionize the chemical analysis business, and eliminate the need for chemical technicians. Said huge chemical company bought several systems (one came into the group I worked in) and spent a huge number of research manhours trying to get it to work. Turned out there were a lot of variables that no one had considered, and said robots were abandoned, as the problems proved intractable.

  • Chapman

    For the record, I just want to say I love ALL you guys!

    What a great thread. This has been a great discussion!

    Thanks all, and Thank You Frank.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Also interesting (from the same user):


      I wonder where the first photo has been taken.

      • artefact

        The first photo is from Focardis TEDX presentation and shows an early reactor design.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Thanks. I thought it could be somehow related to the „serpentine“. But there is probably just a similarity in style, not in content.

      • Bob Greenyer
        • Steve Savage

          A Libertarian, Globalist, Marxist – I love it.
          New combinations of ism’s, creative thinking, blending of ideas, openness to new ways, democracy restored.
          These new lines in the sand are exactly what we need to move forward, working together as a species rather than as tribes.
          We must do this because the risks of leaving the advance of technology in the hands of the currently powerful are immense for the rest of us… Seriously bad!


          • Bob Greenyer

            We are so much more powerful than we think. My father used to say “if you can’t stand on your own two feet, you are nothing”. I am more collectivist than that, in that communities can stand together to achieve goals, just as this one is trying to do. We are very powerful and we may hold the keys to the solution to this big, inevitable change.

            Moving quickly to a situation where communities can provide all of their own needed energy, water and food will remove the dependence to a few that may find us pointless down the line. Independents will also be no threat to the elites since there will be no competition for the same resources.

          • Stephen

            Even old fashioned “village communities” can be amazing and do amazing things when they have the desire and pull together. In this Internet age this must be magnified thousands of times… perhaps there is even a potential infinite COP of community spirit there. Even special interest groups that were individuals in the past can form “villages of common interest” in the World Wide Web.

            With shared power and resources and training and education be it LENR, power storage, AI, local resources distributed manufacture of needed items from local waste etc… who knows what amazing things those groups can make, create and innovate.

            It used to take large corporations to develops and distribute new technology. They may still be needed especially in these immediate times but for sure with the right resources connected communities will play bigger and more important roles. I think in the future the world will work best that way too. Those organizations that adapt and embrace and help the connected world wide community fairly will be the ones that survive I think.

          • Warthog

            “Moving quickly to a situation where communities can provide all of their
            own needed energy, water and food will remove the dependence to a few
            that may find us pointless down the line.”

            Already tried back in the late 1800’s. Failed.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I had no idea you were that old 😉 Look – if I had time to write a book and debate these issues, I’d do it – however, I think it is clear that I am not referring to old approaches to these things.

            Did they really have access to modern levels of energy use and automation in the 1800s?

            What could we achieve with this level of energy use but without the cost and the dependence on third parties to produce it.

            My family were very successful in the 70s – 90s in providing most of our own food, however, we still had high energy costs. If energy costs were not a factor, our 4 acres of green houses could have produced 3 crops a year.

          • Warthog

            There are days when I feel even older.

            My point is that the “village model” has been tried over and over and over as a retrogressive solution to the problems of mass society. They have thus far ALWAYS failed, even those with religious cult starting philosophies. I don’t see lowering the cost of energy causing this to be a success.

            I don’t know what drives humans to build larger and larger cities, but that tendency is a historical fact. More easily available and lower cost energy will most likely result in even denser urban areas, as food production will be “verticalized”. Jed Rothwell has discussed the potential effects of LENR many, many times. His stuff is worth reading.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Not sure I mentioned villages. I did in my steemit post draw attention to production of food in vertical farms in cities.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            True, but abandoning cities and going back to villages has happened as well, for example in the millenial history of South America. Such de-urbanisation phase might happen again in the future for a variety of reasons, e.g. if LENR makes transportation cheaper and faster or if really usable remote presence emerges.

          • Warthog

            Quite true, but that reversal wasn’t voluntary. It was forced by some external event(s)…climate, soil depletion from slash/burn agriculture. Many possibles.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            The analogy with the horse is silly. I mean for this discussion the horse is tool. We don’t see old tubes in tube radios from the 1950’s talking to each other and asking what they will do in the future either – did we? And horses are machines – not people and thus the comparison makes little if any logic.

            The fact that we not using older machines like horse or radio tubes and attempting to state that because we use less tubes, we going to have less work for humans? The difference here is wants of humans are UNLIMITED! The horse was a machine to facilitate economic activity OF humans – not a human that had a job.

            I thus disagree that the “nature” of newer tech makes any difference here. The de-industrialization of the nation did not occur due to automation but primary occurred to the failed free and open trade policies. The last 40 years of history has been shown to be a disaster of too open trade and that is what wiped out so much of the middle class. This “big change” towards us supposedly designing things here and manufacturing them in say China is the PRIMARY reason for the thinning out of our manufacturing and industry – not some magical change in technology.

            And the conclusion that such technology results in less human jobs is not proven by history nor is a strong intellectual case been made that anything has changed in this regards.

            What the internet has facilitated is sharing of information. And this has supported and allowed manufacturing to occur near anyplace.

            You can manufacture high quality cordless drills in the middle of Africa with a modern fab plant that is the size of a double garage. The REAL change then is WHERE you can (and will) manufacture those cordless drills.

            In the past to manufacture those drills you needed rather LARGE investments in capital to create a “viable” plant to build such drills. Now with computer controlled milling, 3-D printing and small automated robots you can build those drills ANYWHERE you want. In fact due to all these cool computer controlled machines, we are seeing a rise in small manufacturing returning to the USA.

            I mean look at this cool video of this James bond like one man helicopter. Note how “nice” the unit looks, but MOST amazing is the video towards the end: You see it was built by some bloke in Russia near in the middle of nowhere. And take a look at his “garage” manufacturing facility and the tools he has at his disposal. (Simply incredible!) Without such “cool” equipment which are essentially robots that fellow would likely be a chicken farmer.

            The video is only 2 minutes – fun to watch!


            MORE cools is the plant at the end:

            Sorry – but automated machines ALLOW you to build and make incredible things – things that people need or want. I am quite sure that the horse does not nor need a one man personal helicopter!

            In fact, with new technology if you can dream it you can quite much build it. In fact the challenge THEN becomes what cool product you “want” to build – and our imagination is really un-limited. Unlike that horse!

            The above change in information flow and small technology manufacturing means that industrial policy and especially trade policy is what going to drive your jobs (or lack of).

            And we see with Brexit, Trump and yes even the rise of La Pen in France shows that the NEW political area is not so much left vs right in politics, but that of globalism vs that of nationalism – that is people simply figuring out why all their jobs are gone – (globalism).

            While Le Pen lost in France the “direction” is towards nationalism – it still growing in Europe and the next election in France thus VERY likely suggests that a “nationalist” will win (and note how conservative and socialist parties were nearly wiped out in voter support). The NEW politics is globalism vs nationalism).

            This “nationalism” is EXACTLY what we had before free trade and globalism – and globalism is EXACTLY the trend that caused all the job losses and des-industrialization of the USA.

            In my province I see TONS of older brewery buildings that date back to the 1930’s. You see, before free trade and the 100 years of REALLY great increasing income we ALSO saw that such prosperity occurred where trade was managed. So “managed” trade does not mean we don’t trade – but ONLY do so for OUR interest. (That means supporting business where you live!).

            So provinces in Canada had a law that if you sell beer here, you have to setup a brewery to do so. That way you paying local taxes for hospitals, schools, and you also buying wheat, barley etc. from local farmers. And you also hiring local sales people, beer reps (has to be the best job in the world!), accountants, and plant managers.

            If you manufacture in China, then THEY have all the benefits of the taxes for schools, hospitals etc. – it WHERE you ADD the wealth to the product is WHERE the economic activity and BENEFITS is going to occur – it really that simple!
            So talk of some kind of state “minimum” income is not possible UNLESS you have wealth creating in your location – and that means industry. I mean does anyone think China going to give that money from where THEY manufactured the goods and wealth and then pay people in your location to not work for some guaranteed income? This is called welfare if you are wondering and you can’t support the welfare state without industry, jobs and wealth creating occurring WHERE you live! If the robots are in China, then you have no taxes and money to support the welfare state.

            The lowering of computers caused a HUGE boom in smaller business in the 1980’s – tons of wealth was created. It allowed a small business to now have the computing power of a huge business. And now with manufacturing and small robots, then small manufactures can exist and compete with larger ones – since they now both have computers. In fact such lowering of manufacturing costs means you can EASY bring back manufacturing to your location.

            A great example is the high performance GE water heaters. They used to manufacture them in China. They moved the plant back (to an old 1950’s washing machine plant in New York! – there were STILL un-finished washing machines hanging on the production line from 1950’s when they simply turned that plant off.

            The key driving factor in GE moving the plant back to the USA?

            Lower energy costs – we still have FAR better and use FAR less energy than China for a given manufacturing output.

            Quality – ability to change parts of the design – ability to stop production etc.

            Accountability – if you wait 6 weeks for delivery (from start of build + delivery), and the batch is bad, you duck soup. You usually just toss them out then try to send the shipping contain back and sort the mess out.

            Want to guess how long the time takes from manufacturing that water heater on plant floor to it appearing on the floor of Home Depot?

            Hang on to your underwear!!!

            In some cases the SAME DAY! That’s right, from start to appearing on floor of Home depot it can occur in the SAME day. The benefits are massive as a result. No huge inventory, super low transportation costs and a zillion more advantages. And you find a defect the same day when the customer tries to install the heater – you not have 12 weeks of produced heaters that are bad!

            JUST 4 days ago? Apple announced a BILLION dollar fund to create manufacturing jobs in the USA. So all this cool new automation is turning the tables back towards manufacturing WHERE your consumers are.

            So this trend ALREADY is creating jobs and opportunities here!

            There is simply NO well thought out example I can find or see that such automation will not result in more jobs, more wealth and a higher standard of living.
            It really comes down to how we prepare and embrace such change. And change brings HUGE opportunities for people to create business that create jobs. I see nothing but opportuneness occurring with this trend.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Steve Savage

            Indeed, It is a nice dream, unfortunately, until we see more value in working together rather than in our own self interest, it will likely not become a significant modality of organizing human will. I think the answer may lie in AI technology that can facilitate democracy, wherein we can design systems that can measure the will of the group and balance that with the needs of individuals on various issues of import and then scale up those decisions to a societal level. I strongly agree that LENR has a huge potential to democratize, allowing for the collective and to isolate it from the world, but there are 6+ billion people, how long can a system of smaller collectives lats, and are we not more dependent on one another in the larger sense such as; climate, travel, economic systems. We need to somehow develop global understanding, it is the only thing that will work, but maybe the collective is a path to that, maybe? I honestly see see no other possible paths, except as the result of humanity confronting a Global shared crisis, and by that time many of us will be gone, pity really!

  • Omega Z

    Unless DARPA has a deep dark project a century or 2 more advanced then publically known or have recieved such technology from extraterrestrials from Orion’s belt, we have no Artificial Intelligence(AI) technology.

    In the early 80’s, computer programmers discussed (AI) vs (SI). Group 1 was partial to the term Artificial Intelligence while group 2 thought that seriously misleading as it is merely Simulated Intelligence. Then group 1 pointed out that the term (AI) would garner far more in R&D funding. Thus, today we’re stuck with the false narrative of Artificial Intelligence. What we have is NOT even close…
    Robots replacing 40% to 50% of all jobs. IF I had a Dollar$.
    In the early 80’s. it was said that Nearly all the jobs will be done by AI robotics by the turn of the Century. OK. Maybe I misunderstood. They didn’t specify what Century.

    While robots are in use in a large scale, they didn’t replace all jobs. Unfortunately, they seldom ever replaced the jobs most needed to be done by Bots. In addition, we have about 30/40 million more jobs then before the robot revolution. There are always people making future projections. Almost always wrong.
    Just because we can replace jobs with (SI) and Robots doesn’t mean we will. Robots could have been far more utilized in the past with an economic benefit. One needs to ask why they weren’t. Obviously, economics is just 1 aspect of the criteria.

    In the automotive arena, Economics was 1 of several crucial aspects. They have more people drawing pensions then manufacturing vehicles. And we’ve all seen the videos of bots welding the chasis together. A highly paid skill with a growing shortage of skilled welders. Robotics were cruscial for vehicles to remain an economically viable and available product. ie, robots were utilized due to multiple reasons out of necessity.

    The fast food industry has dabbled in robots since the 80’s, yet haven’t deployed them. Double the minimum wage and they will, BUT, only to the degree that it brings the labor cost back in balance. Basically, they will reduce the work force by half… Those still employed have more buying power which in itself creates more jobs for those displaced.
    We’ve had this technology for a while. Why is it just now being deployed. To start: The 1999 tech bubble burst and productivity became stagnate. In the 2007/08 housing bust, productivity turned negative. This has much to do with wage stagnation. It’s hard to increase wages when product production is in decline without high inflation rates.

    Presently (2017), the older generation going into retirement. The work force is about to take a major shift. Fewer workers will need to provide for a greater number of people. To be productive enough, SI operated robots will be necessary. Else, Everyone will need to get by on much less. So, It’s not so much replacing people’s jobs as it is supplementing those people’s productivity.

    • georgehants

      OmegaZ, nobody needs to have less, (except the parasites) only productivity is important and the less workers needed for that fair and equally shared productivity the better.
      Leaving many people free to help build a better society for all.

      • Omega Z

        Maybe you missed my point.

        For the last 8 plus years, productivity has been stagnant or declining overall. That means people are producing less per employee. In addition, due to declining birth rates, more people are leaving the work force(retiring) then is being replaced.

        In the U.S., there are people concerned that in the not to distant future, many people may become homeless because of a declining work force to build new housing. People may also in the not to distant future, be drinking tainted water also because of a declining work force to do the hard work to rebuild a crumbling out dated water distribution system. Much of western infrastructure is at or near end of life cycle. But as you say, people should work less while everything decays around them.

  • artefact


    Automated Injection Run May 9, 2017

    Video excerpt of a SunCell’s® ignition run deploying the automated
    control system to maintain equal molten silver levels in the reservoirs
    of the dual molten metal injectors.


  • Rheulan

    Now, Ahlfors is suggesting, as fas as I can understand his silent posts, that Rossi is using this beauty to test the QuarkX calorimetry:


    “Differential Scanning Calorimetry – DSC 404 F1/F3 Pegasus® Method, Technique, Applications Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) is one of the most frequently employed thermal analysis methods. It can be used to analyze nearly any energetic effect occurring in a solid or liquid during thermal treatment.”

  • Warthog

    “……while the other is pragmatic, and undeniably bleak, and sees the
    results of these developments strictly in terms of precedent and track

    That is called the “scientific method”. It “does” work. Those postulating socialist-type societal reorganization are hypothesizing with no evidence (and in fact much negative evidence) to support their contentions. The constant refrain is “it is just common sense”. Well, no, it isn’t.

  • SG

    The long sought after post-scarcity world. And to think we might all be playing a small role in seeing come about.

  • nietsnie

    I stand chastened.

    • Stephen

      I probably should have said “super mega hyper powerful neutrino weapons” just to be sure it works 😉.

      But actually neurtrino momentum is quite interesting. They travel at the speed of light so in someways carry momentum more like a photon…

      On the other hand they have some other interesting properties related to mass. Although they have some mass it is unlike other massive particles that gain almost infinite mass to an out side observer as they approach the speed of light. Netrinos apear to have low mass at the speed of light. It’s even more interesting that the spear to be able to oscillate between flavours i.e. Between electron, muon and tau neutrino flavours each of which have their own mass and also travel at the speed of light although I suppose this could be energy dependent.

      Still given all that physics im not sure yet what I would do if an alien in a space ship threatened to

  • georgehants

    Until the day comes when the poorest children in this World have exactly the same care and equal opportunities to advance as the richest then every one of us is a failure.

    • Omega Z

      Then we shall always be failures. All things being Equal, things are never or ever will be Equal. We are all different. It’s part of nature. Nature demands diversity to allow survival of the fittest.

      • LilyLover

        George isn’t saying ‘same pampering’; what he means is elaborated thus – democratized examination and admission processes to medical school leading to democratized medical knowledge with ample and better doctors leading to doctors sitting idle; when a patient comes in, they get full-luxurious-care and are sent home after embetterment.
        When equi-sick “rich” and “poor-orphan” make a phone-call to doctor and are picked up by the Medical Services, the probability of obtaining the quality of doctor and the quality of treatment by either, must be same util they both are discharged.

        This does not mean that the rich cannot order pearls to eat while getting better. But the Medical Center provides the high quality nutrition to both.
        The important factor is top of the line doctors (highly paid) are availed by time-urgency or logical algorithm not by patient’s ability to pay.

        Survival of the fittest is old, subhuman, scarcity-paradigm.
        If an aggressor eradicates you, did you deserve to be eradicated?

        & Equal opportunity to advance means NOT rewarding un-earned goodies through indirect rent-seeking through interest rates. –> (Rich people’s kids get better internship positions and better recommendation letters from people that are richer, smarter, and have plentiful non-rushed time on their hands, to become richer lawyers/doctors/businessmen.) <– Another form of parasitic leverage.

        • US_Citizen71

          Much of human society worldwide is caused by the desire to improve one’s place and possessions beyond what the average is. Yes, there are small groups that do not behave this way, but in general it holds true. You will not find many that would not like to see the hungry fed or medical care to all that need it. Changing human society to make those goals happen is not that easy or it would be done already. We can would, should, could all we want but without a step by step plan to change the status quo to reach this utopian vision the vision becomes not much more than a Hobbit’s pipe dream. Identifying the need for change is step one, the next thousand steps are where it gets complicated.

          • cashmemorz

            Local governments here in Ontario, Canada have long promised to eradicate poverty. Finally one socialist party leader admitted that the reason children are still hungry is because they have no political clout. Politicians listen mostly to those with some kind of power already in their hands, be that political power as in voting or money and nice sounding rhetoric as in lobbying. So the political system has to be revamped to get the politicians to listen to those with most urgent life threatening needs first, not those who are already in good shape and want more or better to satisfy their personal idea of want.

        • Omega Z

          Equal health care is not obtainable. A recent think tank report stated that if you allow everyone who wants to be or has wanted to be a doctor in the past regardless of abilities and qualifications to become a doctor, there will still be a major doctor shortage in the world. And the number of doctors per capita is expected to continue to decline far into the future.

          In our modern pampered world, It seems income starting at $250K plus a year can’t overcome the eww-ick factor that entails the gross bacterial-laden human body.

    • Warthog

      “The poor you will have with you always”………God.

  • Omega Z

    I think people’s expectations are greatly over blown. There is going to be a lot of distraught people when reality sets in. Energy is just 1 aspect of life among many. LENR will merely provide cheaper energy. All else will remain mostly the same.

  • Omega Z

    You are so delusional right down to believing capitalism is a modern concept. Nothing has changed in 1000’s of years except that we have become better at it. All the while raising the standards of living for everyone. Even the poor have a better life then they did 1000’s of years ago.

  • Warthog

    “….in capitalism, it is necessary to produce large amounts of capital….

    Communism will need to produce exactly the same amounts of capital in order to have an advanced civilization. Machinery and tools will still be needed for production.

  • Warthog

    “Will need to produce same (and surely more) machinery and tools as
    capitalism, with the difference that these amounts would not be a result
    of man exploitation, but of human scientifically planned cooperation,”

    Oh yeah….that has worked out so well thus far. 100,000,000 dead who didn’t agree with the “scientific planners” approach.

    The problem you communists have is that you are stuck with the thinking of Marx, who was an incompetent idiot in real life, sponging off of Engels. There is nothing scientific about communism. “Dialectical materialism” is a complete circular fantasy and a colossal failure in the real world.

    I read your “plan” on how to implement communism, and you are stuck in the year 1913, before the abysmal track record of the next 75 years.

    But you and your ilk are so absolutely convinced in your own minds that only your way is the right way, and, in the end, anyone who disagrees with you ie “evil”, and has to be eliminated “for the good of the proletariat”.

  • Bruce Williams

    I didn`t know Steve was interested in LENR !

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Maybe of interest:

    “False Alarmism: Technological Disruption and the U.S. Labor Market, 1850–2015”


  • Warthog

    And once again with the same vague handwaving you always do. All theory, zero facts.

    ” it will simply not be a money-mediated exchange, but organized via scientific planning within the totally robotized production system and the totally automated distribution system, in the same way as today, within a GM factory, the welding robot does not buy the car doors from another robot. “

    Money is money, whether it is pieces of paper, or zeros and ones in a computer. It is simply and only a medium of exchange.

    “…in the same way the capitalists knew what their goal was, bourgeois enrichment, but surely did not imagine, for example, the hundreds of years of wars needed to unify the capitalist markets among European kingdoms.”

    Capitalism hasn’t EXISTED for “hundreds of years”, so certainly cannot have been the cause of the wars in Europe. The only warfare that can reasonably be attributed to capitalism started with the 20th century. Religion and colonialsm accounted for most.

    “As for your usual argument of killer communists and the market in Soviet Union, I have already debunked it explaining that since the 50’s various authors defined those regimes as state capitalistic.”

    More accurately stated as, “we communists failed, so we’ll call the failure something other than communism”. More broadly practiced by the entire left as “we didn’t like what happened, so we’ll change what the call the subject”.

    “…. violence is always exerted by counter-revolutionaries in the first place.”

    Really?? It hasn’t appeared to be so in most of the time period I have personally observed (~1950 to present day).

    ” f you are in agreement with the “plan” of the bourgeoisie that has freed itself from the domination of kings, I would not give support to the workers’ plan for liberation from the dominance of the bourgeoisie. But I could justify your statement if you belong to the ruling class.

    I’m not in agreement or disagreement with ANY “plan”. I’m just pointing out the actual realities that have existed devoid of BS propaganda. Certain things have worked, and shown themselves repeatedly to have worked. Certain other things have NOT worked, and repeatedly shown themselves as not having worked.

    “Remember, though, by definition, communism is a project for the liberation of all humanity.”

    From what??

  • Omega Z

    That mythical beast. It does not exist and neither will a Utopian world. Your utopian world would require the elimination of free will and a collective mind. Star Trek had a name for such a species. BORG. Are you prepared to be assimilated. Most will not and will fight to the death.

    There is also those who aspire to a life of leisure. While some leisure can be rejuvenating, a life of leisure leads to a weaker species and eventual extinction.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.