• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    10·
    22 小时前

    If robots replace workers then the means of production becomes the producer of the robots.

    Prioritising control of robotics is essential. If communists control the robotics used by the entire world then they essentially control all production in the entire world.

    This is also believed for AI. We will see about that one…

  • peeonyou [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    11·
    1 天前

    is this entire video AI made? lots of weird errors on the graphs, the images are definitely AI, and i don’t think i’ve ever heard of anyone pronounce nike as “nigh-k” before

    • sexywheat [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
      17·
      1 天前

      The one child policy was actually an extremely successful povery-reduction campaign. China learned from all other nations that industrialised that the “in-between” generation (pre/post industrialisation) will cause mass starvation.

      In older generations it’s of course customary to have a bunch of kids (to work on the farm etc), but not so much once your economy modernises. If people continue to have huge families then food production cannot keep up with the sheer number of people moving away from agricultural production.

      Dunno if I am articulating this complex idea very well. Maybe someone else with a better understanding of it can weigh in.

      • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        5·
        21 小时前

        Does that hold true with modern mechanized agriculture? India never implemented such a policy, and it still produces a food surplus (despite suffering hunger problems stemming from distribution). Isn’t China’s recent initiative to increase fertility a sign that the policy was an overcorrection?

        I always thought the logic of the policy was rooted in Malthusianism.

        • sexywheat [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
          3·
          14 小时前

          Does that hold true with modern mechanized agriculture?

          That’s a very good question, I don’t know. I guess we’ll never know what would have happened had they not had the one-child policy, but AFAIK it was trying to avoid the pitfalls of industrialisation where other nations failed.

        • Tabitha ☢️[she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
          5·
          20 小时前

          I think Malthusianism is probably an unfair comparison, as that’s more like a doomerist political philosophy, where the one-child-policy is more a temporary solution to a short-term problem.

          Not that I agree with the one-child-policy or anything, but having grown up in Amerikkka where every gringo thinks it’s their God-given right to have unlimmited babies (in accordance us-foreign-policy ), and many even seem to believe it’s a personal insult to them if I decide to have zero (or they just don’t believe I have to the right to make that choice), it does seem like perhaps the English speaking world is primed to think it’s a far more extreme policy than it really is, or at least there’s a lot of looking outwards and refusing to crit inwards on this. Because you know deep down the purpose of having large numbers of kids seems to boil down to treating them like property.

          I wouldn’t say the one-child-policy right, but I’ve also never seen an example of critic doing anything more than a gut-reaction to a surface level understanding of the issue (and you know, therefore Marx was wrong about the price of linen or w/e), while at the same time, even if only by accident, probably proping up Western Values higher than Principles. I’ve never seen a critic propose a better solution that wasn’t the hand wavey just-dont-buy-20k-per-year-of-starbucks type of domestic policy.

          But I’d think that would make a great effort post if someone wanted to cook.