"cr88192" <cr88192@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:3155f$488c7d36$7937c448$26174@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:g6epgv$sqf$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "cr88192" <cr88192@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:68c6e$48895b8b$7937c448$19562@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> actually, once the basic technologies are worked out, likely androids
> >> will
> >> be generally cheaper in many ways than humans (after all, they don't
have
> > to
> >> pay for survival, need their own living space, or consume large
amounts
> >> of
> >> food).
> >
> > What's cheaper? Tweak a few DNA molecules and give the lifeform food
or
> > mass production of artificial lifeform components? I'd think genetic
> > engineering or re-engineering will cost less. If it's a non-human
> > lifeform,
> > raising many of them is just a form of farming...
> >
>
> but, you actually have to treat humans like humans.
AH!
> androids could be packed into boxes or closets, and only run when and
where
> they are needed (they could be treated far worse than any humans without
> raising any sympathy).
Do we have to treat genetically modified squirrels, ferrets, rabbits, or
alligators, with human brain capacity and human pro****tions as human? Do
we
have to treat pigs with human hearts, ears, kidneys (etc. for medical
transplants), with human brain capacity as human? Or, just as food... If
we can't treat these genetically created "workers" as food because of
their
new brain capacity, then it's likely the world can't justify treating
cows,
deer, monkeys, horses, dogs, cats, as food either due to their current
brain
capacity... If we can't treat the "workers" we "created" as food due to
their brain capacity, then how can we justify treating an android we
created
that has anything more than a child's brain capacity as anything less than
a
full human? If it's as smart as us or our children, shouldn't it be
treated
like us or our children? I.e., isn't sympathy basically judged by the
brain
capacity, adorability, and respectability, of the lifeform from our
perspective?
> also, eventually the component cost is likely to be cheaper as well,
given
> that mechanical parts can be cheaply mass produced and stored long term
> (organic components, however, face issues such as death and decay).
Is Australia overrun with rabbits? Is India overrun with s****s and rats?
Is the sea floor overrun with crustaceans? I rest my case...
> > But, without smaller scale developments in batteries and capacitors
for
> > trans****tation, home heating, etc., we're stuck.
>
> yes, current batteries are pretty lame...
>
> for example, if I could replace my laptop battery with an equivalent
volume
> of wax, and had a fairly high energy conversion, likely I could run my
> laptop for about 1 week.
>
> why: because a birthday candle puts out enough energy (in the form of
heat)
> to keep such a laptop running, and it would take around a week to burn
> through that much wax.
....
> yes, current batteries are pretty lame...
Or, current micro-heat engines are very poorly developed? I.e., it's
quite
easy to generate heat from electricity: resistance, induction, but
generating electricity from heat isn't as easy... Or, do micro-heat
engines
have other undesirable risks: pollution, fire?
> basically, [androids] could be a potentially cheaper alternative to
humans
for
> many forms of unskilled labor...
With all the poverty in the world, is there really a need for cheaper
labor?
With a potential worldwide population explosion on the horizon, is there
really a need for cheaper labor? (The whole world could be eating
krill...)
Or, is the real need to relocate work and workers so that they can be
together?
Rod Pemberton
|
