"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g6irbh$hq4$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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?
>
it is not needed, so long as they are not actually self-aware.
so, for example, they can have a human-like intelligence, but still act
and
think like an ordinary machine, and then not raise sympathy (of course, I
also ended up dealing with some of these kinds of issues in some recently
written fiction as well...).
>> 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, are rabbits, rats, and s****s, economically converted into useful
machinery that will not turn into a big rotten mess if left alone in the
closet?...
>> > 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?
>
sadly, heat-engines, such as steam-engines, internal combustion engines,
...
don't scale down so nicely or efficiently.
for example, there are tiny piston engines, however:
they have overly high RPMs;
they often need NOS or some other oxidizer;
they get lame torque and have poor fuel efficiency;
they wear out extremenly fast;
....
so, these engines are often treated like replacable components, getting a
short lifespan and being swapped out whenever they die.
very likely, something 'new' would need to be developed, likely needing
fairly elaborate heat-pipelining, and a minimum of moving parts.
for example, I had imagined a kind of micro stream engine, which if it
worked effectively, would only need a few moving parts: namely 2 turbines,
and possibly some gears, to keep going. most of the rest would be
configurations of channels or tubing.
another considered possible option could be to try to make a tiny
turbo-charged wankel-rotary engine (a rotary engine should be able to
downscale a lot better than a piston engine I think, and have a longer
lifespan). the turbocharchger would likely be customized, intended partly
as
an over-burner, and possibly also to pre-heat incomming air and fuel.
scaling down an engine enough to effectively power a laptop could be
problematic though...
>> 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?
>
I suspect probably most people would probably rather see the other people
in
the world fend for themselves or starve to death rather than be paid low
wages (minimum wage or nothing at all...).
androids could thus allow for a cheap workforce, and also for wealthier
countries to ignore the populous of less wealthy countries (leaving them
to
fend for themselves and so on...).
>
> Rod Pemberton
>
|
