Do Robots Dream of Revenues?

If you’re like me, some nights it feels like sleep will never come. You just lie there exhausted, but unable to stop thinking. Thinking things like, “how far would some parties go to prevent an adverse Supreme Court decision?” And “why is there a pillow over my face?” Fortunately those are the type of thoughts that don’t linger long, and soon enough you’re thinking other things like “hey, isn’t that Uncle Pete playing a harp?” and “I really hope my autopsy gets to the bottom of this.”

But those trifles aside, another item I occasionally ponder is the rapid advance and deployment of robotics in the labor market. There are currently over 260,000 robots in US factories, with this figure almost certainly representing the very thin edge of what will become a very thick proliferation.

Germany and Japan are already both far more industrially automated, with the latter almost solitary in its bizarre determination to not bolster the labor force with pathological African welfare recipients. Within the last year, China has brought a 90% robotics factory online, and it’s not only manufacturing that will be affected. Even the vaunted Mexican workforce that is responsible for the Mexico you see today will not be spared. Already the tequila-irrigated Field of Dreamers is being supplanted by genteel apple and lettuce picking C3P0s.

Some even predict that in a generation robots will be able to perform a majority of production tasks more efficiently than humans. With 50% baseline unemployment being the natural corollary. Which may leave significant leisure opportunity for unemployed men to court Roxxxy the sex robot.

Though beyond that titillating prospect, some might wonder if an Economy less reliant on helot labor will offer sufficient inducement for the donor class to continue attacking the middle. If native workers have already been displaced by automation, wouldn’t the continued importation of foreigners simply become gratuitous? What is the remaining incentive once you’ve approached the no-employed-American singularity?

Faithful readers of this vanity enterprise already know the answers. Even without a remaining penny to shave from their corporate COGS, we can exhale in relief that tech titans will continue toiling to pry open any still obstinate borders.

There are multiple reasons for this. An ancillary one is that borders necessarily represent commercial friction. An ideal business world is one with a smooth, unified surface and light regulatory burden. Nationalist movements are sand in this, and therefore even more abominable than a capital gains tax. For countries don’t represent nations, but markets. And your son comes after my supply-chain. But occasionally a politician will make a show of caring more about his people than our profits. That’s when we lavish some of the latter to properly reorient his economic philosophy.

Though the primary reason you must subsidize Somali importation is the Universal Business Imperative: growth. Corporate chieftains must sale more shlock in the next fiscal quarter than they did in the last, or the board will find someone who will. And how, for instance, do I go about selling more cable boxes in Q2? That’s almost as intuitive as my Mercedes S-Class: you make sure more people subscribe to cable. And what if the native market of cable subscribers is saturated? Well then it’s time to expand the cable subscriber market, n’est pas? Extrapolate this across the industrial spectrum and business incentives become fairly apparent. More consumers trends toward more consumption. The historically obscene costs of cheap labor are a fringe benefit.

And though I expect the donor class to maintain a practiced insouciance, I do think they are perched on an increasingly narrow ledge with this strategy. Their consumer supplement populations are continually advised that rich white (and whitish) men are the source of their failure to receive the Starz and Cinemax premium package. These soon-to-be-voters, and their multitudinous offspring will produce politicians of their own kind who have been taught similarly. Increasingly diverse representatives will pass unfavorable legislation and seat judges, who will themselves view business balance sheets with less reverence than scorn. The temptation to enact massive rich white to poor brown wealth transfers will become irresistible. And all of it can be exercised by strict due process, nice and constitutional-like.

Of course that assumes donors will only lose the choicest apples from their orchard. But consider a feasible scenario of wholesale ongoing population replacement, boiling over racial antipathies, a vertical class stratification, and massive automation-driven unemployment simultaneously. That is the witch’s brew that spills red.

And it is in such times that cagey businessmen turn minds to not losing the one personal effect they cherish even more than money. Though since there’s currently a bear market in guillotines, Pluto probably wagers the border guards at his gated community will be sufficient to keep head and neck in close proximity.

He may be correct. São Paulo, as an example, has helipads cheek by jowl with outdoor shit buckets, and the only blemish to Brazil’s tranquility is its failure to capture every slot in the world’s most violent cities list. While a bloody Babel isn’t the social template I would personally choose to make out of Franklin’s republic, it probably will feature increasingly mannequin-like sex robots.

And for a shrewd CEO, that’s a solid ROI.

35 thoughts on “Do Robots Dream of Revenues?

  1. Pingback: Do Robots Dream of Revenues? | Reaction Times

  2. Are you familiar with Nick Land and his site xenosystems.net? This article elucidates a perspective you do not seem to consider in any of your writings, that of Capital.

      • To be clear, do you not agree that Capital has its own goals or telos?

        Or do you consider Land’s stance that humans should assist Capital in accomplishing said goals as appalling?

      • Yes, Capital certainly has its own goals. A trait it shares with most human sub-groupings.

        Or do you consider Land’s stance that humans should assist Capital in accomplishing said goals as appalling?

        Is that his stance? That Capital distinguishes itself from humans? What are capitalists then? And whose goals are they assisting?

      • That Capital distinguishes itself from humans?

        Yes. As it appears you hinted at with “A trait it shares with most human sub-groupings” many of the goals overlap in such a way that they appear symbiotic; however, there are significant empirical instances and current trends that show major divergence between Capital and human telos (at least if you limit “human telos” to those like yourself).

        What are capitalists then?

        The humans that currently “own” Capital under the Western conception of property.

        And whose goals are they assisting?

        It appears most are completely unaware of even the possibility of Capital having its own telos apart from that of a healthy human being.

        ———-

        I realize that these questions appear to be from “out of the blue” and that the reasons for asking are likely not apparent. However, I do have one more question:

        Do you agree that some conditions are not worth living in? That existence at any cost is a bastardization of what it means to truly be human, and that existence is not identical to survival?

      • No, capitalists share traits with other human interest groups because they are one, not as an interesting parallel between disparate creatures. But that’s not a point of sane debate.

      • “capitalists share traits with other human interest groups because they are one, not as an interesting parallel between disparate creatures”

        Agreed, as stated “The humans that currently “own” Capital under the Western conception of property.”

        So, is it correct to assume you do not perceive Capital as a “disparate” force as apart from human capitalists?

      • To answer what your oblique line of inquiry may or may not be asking: Capital is a force, though not a sentient one. That’s why you’re talking to me and not it. As such it is, like all systems and tools, subject to the will of those parties able to conceive and act upon self interests.

        If there is a model that views Capital as a pitiless framework that holds merchants hostage within its precepts, then it is one we should consider modifying out of compassion for capitalists, if nothing else.

        Though if they are using it, rather than it using they, we might actually have some human agency to comment upon.

      • As such it is, like all systems and tools, subject to the will of those parties able to conceive and act upon self interests.

        Here’s a different perspective (from Lands article above): ” Anyone who thinks this amounts to a critique of capitalism, however, has not seriously begun to ponder what capitalism is really doing. What it is in itself is only tactically connected to what it does for us — that is (in part), what it trades us for its self-escalation. Our phenomenology is its camouflage.”

        To state that last sentence in another way (also credit to Land); the question isn’t how many more cheeseburgers humans get for a new machine. Rather, how many new machines and computer/information processing technologies Capital gets in exchange for the extra cheeseburgers.

        Thanks for relating your perspective. It appears we are too far off from each other for this to be very valuable.

        Regardless of agreement on this topic, your writing ability is very impressive and I look forward to reading more, especially if you ever get to that fiction book.

      • Ho -ho…. I don’t much want other people here to fling stuff at me, but Admin, thanks for your comment. I look at Land from time to time, but there is something askew there I recurrently feel.

        What you say… he wrote that in 2014 so who knows, but that sentiment as distilled over there is on the repulsive side. No direct offense to the guy as he puts interesting news, attracts lively comment-visitors, that kind of thing.

        But whoo-boy…

  3. The primary reason is hatred against Western man by the Jews. At the end of the day it is about more than money.

    Read Kmac: he shows that it was the Jews alone who pushed the 1965 mud invasion act, not ‘businessmen’

    • Hart-Celler and jews weren’t the topics of this piece. Had they been, I wouldn’t require MacDonald to make the connection.

      And as egregious as that law was, America would be absent many millions of snarling brown faces if it alone had been the impetus.

      Businessmen (shorn of quotes as I have confirmed their existence) have played their own malign role. At the end of their day, it is about money and power.

      • “Businessmen” were not the architects of the 1965 US population improvement act.

        They were simply astute enough to see its fiscal advantages.

        White people were racist back then, and would understand such a plan for what it was- a plot to make America less white.

    • At the end of the day it is about more than money.

      Money in the strict sense, maybe. But do you consider it about more than power and control?

      • The control of the flow of money is power because with money/credit real wealth (natural resources and means of production) can be bought and delivered. As Ezra Pound said, “follow the money”.

      • The control of the flow of money is power because with money/credit real wealth (natural resources and means of production) can be bought and delivered.

        Completely agree. But there are other legitimate forms of power that are not reliant on the Western conception of property rights. “It is about more than money.”

  4. It’s hard to believe there are people who want their descendants to live in gated communities for century after century, with seething masses of feral non-whites stretching as far as the eye can see outside. It sounds like a precarious existence, considering the alternative of keeping our peaceful homogeneous countries for ourselves.

  5. Next up: The Robot Civil Rights movement, spearheaded by the SPLC – who will, of course, be empowered to vote on behalf of the poor downtrodden robots.

    Think of the robot children.

      • It will happen. Humans have an incredible ability to anthropomorphize anything – stone idols, stuffed animals, dildos, blowup dolls, *******, dogs, and even robots. Reports from Iraqistan show soldiers getting emotionally attached to their remote-controlled IED-disablers, to the point of weeping and depression when one of them gets blown up in the line of duty. And these are the remote-controlled, human-operated machines. Just wait til they are quasi-autonomous, with “emotion” and “personality” circuitry enabling them to “Yo Dawg” and fist-bump their human colleagues.
        I also can’t wait for the robots to splinter into House Droid and Field Droid factions. The worldstar wars will be epic.

      • I do not understand how those who agree with this line of thought do not agree that “Capital has its own telos apart from that of a healthy human being.”

        Do you just place the entirety of agency on humans?

      • Let’s look at by way of example:

        Do you consider evolutionary forces that exist and act on humans (biological beings who transmit genetic material/information through reproduction) beings as being real. Do those forces act on humans whether they acknowledge them or not?

      • Fair enough. Apologies for my comments appearing that way.

        Here is a perspective you may find valuable (though I consider it less accurate than my own, but still closer than what you are offering):

        I agree with your assessment that globalism is receding and being usurped by nationalist feelings in much of the population, and for good reason. Even capitalists such as Peter Thiel recognize this trend (from his conversation with Tyler Cowen, available on youtube):

        I would bet on globalization slowly being in abeyance. I think with the benefit of hindsight, we will realize that 2007 was not just the peak year of the finance boom, but also the peak year of globalization, like maybe 1913. Happily, it hasn’t resulted in a world war, at least not yet, but I think we are in this period where globalization is steadily pulling back.

        Without an outlet for such emotion, the foundations of modernity risk being completely toppled in violence and chaos. Trump and his immigration stance are what they appear to be: a trade offered to increasingly angry whites to not seriously cause too much damage to the system. But what does such a trade offer (and what would it never offer)?

        My contention is that we are experiencing Capital’s (or, since you want a human boogey-man so desperately, call it capitalists) push for creating a highly liquid/interchangeable and specialized labor force. No more conceptions of race that limit humans willingness to produce and trade with each other. No more conceptions of nations with their own archaic laws and national self interests. No more conceptions of family that ties humans to the geography of their ancestors and inclines humans to provide and care for others based on characteristics other than their economic productivity. To accomplish this, it needs to destroy human identity as anything other than economic cog.

        While the overt appeal to globalisation is one such means towards that end, it is secondary in nature to the cultural/intellectual assault on said concepts (race, nation, family). I trust you don’t need spelled out the way gay marriage, abortion, equality of genders, equality of all humans regardless of national origin, normalization of trans-whatevers, etc. work to destroy those concepts.

        These conceptual assaults are primary, overt globalisation is secondary. What we are witnessing with the shift towards nationalism is only evidence that the secondary means (overt globalization thru the legal system) has outpaced the primary means (the destruction of the concepts that relate to human identity).

        So let’s now look at how a Trump victory would relate to this perspective (and make a few predictions).
        1) Trump will implement immigration reform to some degree. Do to the nature of Washington, he may not get everything he has promised, but he will try to build the wall (unlikely it will be payed for by Mexico) and deport illegals to some degree. Whites are angry and the trade must placate them.
        2) Trump will likely implement further steps towards single-payer healthcare (if not implement it directly). This further increases the liquidity of labor. Changing health insurance from being a business expense that limits not only the ability to hire, but also the ability of labor to easily change jobs based on market demand; Capital (or the capitalists) can better allocate its resources (including human labor) towards purely “economic” efficiency.
        3) Trump will reduce and simplify the tax code on businesses and individuals. Again, this allows Capital to flow more freely throughout the system without becoming “trapped” due to specific tax regulations that benefit certain types of investment at the expense of others.
        4) Trump will do nothing about the conceptual assault on human identity. He is for abortion, for government ran health-care, and (to my knowledge) neutral/for gay marriage. He has never indicated any inclination to fight the SJW’s on trans/whatever-new-mal-normal concepts of equality they come up with next, and most of this assault takes place outside of institutions any president can affect. He has never indicated he will do anything about federal/state funding for the academic institutions that foster this rebellion.
        5) During his presidency (to be fair, during any of the candidates next presidencies), the intellectual property rights regarding genetic engineering/modification will increase. Monsanto, Dupont, etc. will continue to grow the body of case law that gives corporations ownership over genes. During this time, we will also see increased R&D into human genetic engineering/modification. I trust you can understand why these two points (corporate ownership over gene technology and corporate research into said gene technology) are listed as a single point.

        In a simple formulation, my contention is: whites are accepting a trade that does little to actually conserve themselves and distracts them from the real threats. Such a trade purposely delays overt globalisation in the present while fostering an environment for the continued conceptual assault on the foundations of human identity. Thus allowing overt globalisation in the future.

        @ Porter

        Thanks for the link to the ICP video. I enjoyed and appreciate that very much.

  6. Different T, I wondered if race wasn’t what you might be getting at but I wanted you to say it, and say it you did, very elegantly. Trump has expanded the Overton Window ever so slightly and it is now for us the public to expand it further. Yes, the power of a thinking, homogeneous population is awesome as we have seen in the past, especially a thinking White population. We’ve got a lot of work to do.

    • To clarify:

      1) Trump has expanded the Overton Window ever so slightly and it is now for us the public to expand it further. This analysis is missing a very important consideration. Trump may be “expanding the Overton Window,” but at what cost? Again, the contention is “whites are accepting a trade that does little to actually conserve themselves and distracts them from the real threats.”

      2) the power of a thinking, homogeneous population is awesome as we have seen in the past, especially a thinking White population. The very existence of an “Overton Window” is evidence of a demotist reality regarding government/rule. This must be understood for the analysis to be of real value, as compared to just another trade that favors the destruction of human identity.

      To be very clear, Democracy is destructive to human identity.

  7. My contention is that we are experiencing Capital’s (or, since you want a human boogey-man so desperately, call it capitalists)

    Capital better watch his mouth, friend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s