The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I decided to go out for a drink with my friend tonight, to a desolate club in the Market Harborough region. I am very sorry if this offends anyone! The point to this story is what engrossed us in coversation for most of the night. Albeit this will probably appear as drunken warbling to most, but please take time to listen and appreciate how the world seems to be moving in a blatant trend towards robot logic.
Robots are now a component of the modern world, this is not an arguable point, it is pure fact. Manufacturers seem to be taking robots as a preference to manual labour in the construction of their goods. Is this necessarily what the modern world intended? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
IN SUPPORT OF ROBOTS
Robots are efficient and well designed machines, generally designed for one purpose. Thus if a company can design a robot to a job that normally takes five men, then it is an economically sound decision. It is a axiomatic view to vision robots spraying and manufacturing cars, because the manufacturers willingly display this to us. In fact, the majority of modern car manufacture is carried out by robots. This can only be a good thing.... Robot manufactured cars can be cheaper, safer, and more robust than the similar man made efforts. Plus, we can get more products manufactured in the unit time than man can manage... Speed is another influencial factor that seems to be moving the world towards robots in the workplace.
Robots can also be employed in situations where it would be dangerous or controversial for man to delve. An example would be dealing with radioactive substance, and biological research. However, robot involvement in these previously hidden realms of science, could prove of vast importance in the modern world. Biological viruses and toxins would be wholly dangerous for humans to deal with, thus by using suitably designed robots to replace the human, research can continue at an exponential rate. With the seemingly danger obsessive world, robots seem to be the perfect replacement. This way, science can continue, effectively without the moral basis of human involvement. This could work wonders for the future of the sciences, especially medicine.
AGAINST ROBOTS
Robots could be the killer of the modern economy. By replacing manpower in the workplace, unemployment will rise sky high in comparison with the rest of the world. People will be forced in to underqualified jobs which do not require their skills and experience. Engineers are a paradigmatic example of this. Who would need engineers if the world of engineering design and manufacture were replaced by machines?
The booming unemployment balanced with the increase in corporate revenue would ignite political sparks among the executive. It cannot be far off before the British government outlaws the excessive use of robots in the workplace. Economy is often balanced with efficiency - and this must also reflect the needs of the workers.
If company X was to make one million profit per year using human manpower, and two million using robot technology, it is obvious which looks more attractive. However, by opting for option B, companies are taking the profit margin for granted. By employing robots, unemployment increases, thus taxes will rise for the corporations to cover the unemployment. Thus corporations could find themselves spending more on taxes than the overall net cost of hiring robots.
IN SUMMARY
What you have just read are the common bases for human interaction with the world of robotic science. An abstract article it may be, but important points lie between the lines. Imagine, in the future, it is theoretically possible for robots to replace human workers in any field. Be it law, medicine, or engineering, robots have had a profound effect already on the way these industries operate.
Elaborating on medical robotics, it was a recent operation that involved a robot being controlled by an internet operator, but how controversial is this? Do robots really have the stature to be playing god? Imagine again, if the robot was to malfunction, an error that the human can arguably avoid, a life could be lost. This controversial discussion is a recurring topic in the British Medical Journal and more alike.
The bottom line is which stance does the everyday citizen take regarding robots in the workplace. Admittedly the exponential rise in technology can accomodate robotics conveniently, but is this the best move? On the other hand robots can do jobs which pose danger to humans, and carry out mundane jobs that humans do - without complaint, fatigue, or sick-days! Robots appear to be the perfect replacement to the intelligent human, but just how far will capitalism take this concept?
Thanks very much for reading this semi early hours article. I hope it enlightens at least one of you!
Robots are now a component of the modern world, this is not an arguable point, it is pure fact. Manufacturers seem to be taking robots as a preference to manual labour in the construction of their goods. Is this necessarily what the modern world intended? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
IN SUPPORT OF ROBOTS
Robots are efficient and well designed machines, generally designed for one purpose. Thus if a company can design a robot to a job that normally takes five men, then it is an economically sound decision. It is a axiomatic view to vision robots spraying and manufacturing cars, because the manufacturers willingly display this to us. In fact, the majority of modern car manufacture is carried out by robots. This can only be a good thing.... Robot manufactured cars can be cheaper, safer, and more robust than the similar man made efforts. Plus, we can get more products manufactured in the unit time than man can manage... Speed is another influencial factor that seems to be moving the world towards robots in the workplace.
Robots can also be employed in situations where it would be dangerous or controversial for man to delve. An example would be dealing with radioactive substance, and biological research. However, robot involvement in these previously hidden realms of science, could prove of vast importance in the modern world. Biological viruses and toxins would be wholly dangerous for humans to deal with, thus by using suitably designed robots to replace the human, research can continue at an exponential rate. With the seemingly danger obsessive world, robots seem to be the perfect replacement. This way, science can continue, effectively without the moral basis of human involvement. This could work wonders for the future of the sciences, especially medicine.
AGAINST ROBOTS
Robots could be the killer of the modern economy. By replacing manpower in the workplace, unemployment will rise sky high in comparison with the rest of the world. People will be forced in to underqualified jobs which do not require their skills and experience. Engineers are a paradigmatic example of this. Who would need engineers if the world of engineering design and manufacture were replaced by machines?
The booming unemployment balanced with the increase in corporate revenue would ignite political sparks among the executive. It cannot be far off before the British government outlaws the excessive use of robots in the workplace. Economy is often balanced with efficiency - and this must also reflect the needs of the workers.
If company X was to make one million profit per year using human manpower, and two million using robot technology, it is obvious which looks more attractive. However, by opting for option B, companies are taking the profit margin for granted. By employing robots, unemployment increases, thus taxes will rise for the corporations to cover the unemployment. Thus corporations could find themselves spending more on taxes than the overall net cost of hiring robots.
IN SUMMARY
What you have just read are the common bases for human interaction with the world of robotic science. An abstract article it may be, but important points lie between the lines. Imagine, in the future, it is theoretically possible for robots to replace human workers in any field. Be it law, medicine, or engineering, robots have had a profound effect already on the way these industries operate.
Elaborating on medical robotics, it was a recent operation that involved a robot being controlled by an internet operator, but how controversial is this? Do robots really have the stature to be playing god? Imagine again, if the robot was to malfunction, an error that the human can arguably avoid, a life could be lost. This controversial discussion is a recurring topic in the British Medical Journal and more alike.
The bottom line is which stance does the everyday citizen take regarding robots in the workplace. Admittedly the exponential rise in technology can accomodate robotics conveniently, but is this the best move? On the other hand robots can do jobs which pose danger to humans, and carry out mundane jobs that humans do - without complaint, fatigue, or sick-days! Robots appear to be the perfect replacement to the intelligent human, but just how far will capitalism take this concept?
Thanks very much for reading this semi early hours article. I hope it enlightens at least one of you!
Semejal, you really do need to get laid.
and what the hell is with all the 0000s?
and what the hell is with all the 0000s?
ww00000000000000000000000000000000000000000t
Robot wars ownz.
Ok so the first and second serious wern't great but the 5th serios (is it 5th that will be shown next)
should be great.
Razer RULES all robots
Robot wars ownz.
Ok so the first and second serious wern't great but the 5th serios (is it 5th that will be shown next)
should be great.
Razer RULES all robots
When I clicked on this topic I hoped it wasn't going to be about the lame BBC2 program of the same name...and it wasn't.
Good post again Franny, some interesting points made.
Good post again Franny, some interesting points made.
I decided to go out for a drink with my friend tonight, to a desolate club in the Market Harborough region. I am very sorry if this offends anyone! The point to this story is what engrossed us in coversation for most of the night. Albeit this will probably appear as drunken warbling to most, but please take time to listen and appreciate how the world seems to be moving in a blatant trend towards robot logic.
Robots are now a component of the modern world, this is not an arguable point, it is pure fact. Manufacturers seem to be taking robots as a preference to manual labour in the construction of their goods. Is this necessarily what the modern world intended? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
IN SUPPORT OF ROBOTS
Robots are efficient and well designed machines, generally designed for one purpose. Thus if a company can design a robot to a job that normally takes five men, then it is an economically sound decision. It is a axiomatic view to vision robots spraying and manufacturing cars, because the manufacturers willingly display this to us. In fact, the majority of modern car manufacture is carried out by robots. This can only be a good thing.... Robot manufactured cars can be cheaper, safer, and more robust than the similar man made efforts. Plus, we can get more products manufactured in the unit time than man can manage... Speed is another influencial factor that seems to be moving the world towards robots in the workplace.
Robots can also be employed in situations where it would be dangerous or controversial for man to delve. An example would be dealing with radioactive substance, and biological research. However, robot involvement in these previously hidden realms of science, could prove of vast importance in the modern world. Biological viruses and toxins would be wholly dangerous for humans to deal with, thus by using suitably designed robots to replace the human, research can continue at an exponential rate. With the seemingly danger obsessive world, robots seem to be the perfect replacement. This way, science can continue, effectively without the moral basis of human involvement. This could work wonders for the future of the sciences, especially medicine.
AGAINST ROBOTS
Robots could be the killer of the modern economy. By replacing manpower in the workplace, unemployment will rise sky high in comparison with the rest of the world. People will be forced in to underqualified jobs which do not require their skills and experience. Engineers are a paradigmatic example of this. Who would need engineers if the world of engineering design and manufacture were replaced by machines?
The booming unemployment balanced with the increase in corporate revenue would ignite political sparks among the executive. It cannot be far off before the British government outlaws the excessive use of robots in the workplace. Economy is often balanced with efficiency - and this must also reflect the needs of the workers.
If company X was to make one million profit per year using human manpower, and two million using robot technology, it is obvious which looks more attractive. However, by opting for option B, companies are taking the profit margin for granted. By employing robots, unemployment increases, thus taxes will rise for the corporations to cover the unemployment. Thus corporations could find themselves spending more on taxes than the overall net cost of hiring robots.
IN SUMMARY
What you have just read are the common bases for human interaction with the world of robotic science. An abstract article it may be, but important points lie between the lines. Imagine, in the future, it is theoretically possible for robots to replace human workers in any field. Be it law, medicine, or engineering, robots have had a profound effect already on the way these industries operate.
Elaborating on medical robotics, it was a recent operation that involved a robot being controlled by an internet operator, but how controversial is this? Do robots really have the stature to be playing god? Imagine again, if the robot was to malfunction, an error that the human can arguably avoid, a life could be lost. This controversial discussion is a recurring topic in the British Medical Journal and more alike.
The bottom line is which stance does the everyday citizen take regarding robots in the workplace. Admittedly the exponential rise in technology can accomodate robotics conveniently, but is this the best move? On the other hand robots can do jobs which pose danger to humans, and carry out mundane jobs that humans do - without complaint, fatigue, or sick-days! Robots appear to be the perfect replacement to the intelligent human, but just how far will capitalism take this concept?
Thanks very much for reading this semi early hours article. I hope it enlightens at least one of you!
Robots are now a component of the modern world, this is not an arguable point, it is pure fact. Manufacturers seem to be taking robots as a preference to manual labour in the construction of their goods. Is this necessarily what the modern world intended? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
IN SUPPORT OF ROBOTS
Robots are efficient and well designed machines, generally designed for one purpose. Thus if a company can design a robot to a job that normally takes five men, then it is an economically sound decision. It is a axiomatic view to vision robots spraying and manufacturing cars, because the manufacturers willingly display this to us. In fact, the majority of modern car manufacture is carried out by robots. This can only be a good thing.... Robot manufactured cars can be cheaper, safer, and more robust than the similar man made efforts. Plus, we can get more products manufactured in the unit time than man can manage... Speed is another influencial factor that seems to be moving the world towards robots in the workplace.
Robots can also be employed in situations where it would be dangerous or controversial for man to delve. An example would be dealing with radioactive substance, and biological research. However, robot involvement in these previously hidden realms of science, could prove of vast importance in the modern world. Biological viruses and toxins would be wholly dangerous for humans to deal with, thus by using suitably designed robots to replace the human, research can continue at an exponential rate. With the seemingly danger obsessive world, robots seem to be the perfect replacement. This way, science can continue, effectively without the moral basis of human involvement. This could work wonders for the future of the sciences, especially medicine.
AGAINST ROBOTS
Robots could be the killer of the modern economy. By replacing manpower in the workplace, unemployment will rise sky high in comparison with the rest of the world. People will be forced in to underqualified jobs which do not require their skills and experience. Engineers are a paradigmatic example of this. Who would need engineers if the world of engineering design and manufacture were replaced by machines?
The booming unemployment balanced with the increase in corporate revenue would ignite political sparks among the executive. It cannot be far off before the British government outlaws the excessive use of robots in the workplace. Economy is often balanced with efficiency - and this must also reflect the needs of the workers.
If company X was to make one million profit per year using human manpower, and two million using robot technology, it is obvious which looks more attractive. However, by opting for option B, companies are taking the profit margin for granted. By employing robots, unemployment increases, thus taxes will rise for the corporations to cover the unemployment. Thus corporations could find themselves spending more on taxes than the overall net cost of hiring robots.
IN SUMMARY
What you have just read are the common bases for human interaction with the world of robotic science. An abstract article it may be, but important points lie between the lines. Imagine, in the future, it is theoretically possible for robots to replace human workers in any field. Be it law, medicine, or engineering, robots have had a profound effect already on the way these industries operate.
Elaborating on medical robotics, it was a recent operation that involved a robot being controlled by an internet operator, but how controversial is this? Do robots really have the stature to be playing god? Imagine again, if the robot was to malfunction, an error that the human can arguably avoid, a life could be lost. This controversial discussion is a recurring topic in the British Medical Journal and more alike.
The bottom line is which stance does the everyday citizen take regarding robots in the workplace. Admittedly the exponential rise in technology can accomodate robotics conveniently, but is this the best move? On the other hand robots can do jobs which pose danger to humans, and carry out mundane jobs that humans do - without complaint, fatigue, or sick-days! Robots appear to be the perfect replacement to the intelligent human, but just how far will capitalism take this concept?
Thanks very much for reading this semi early hours article. I hope it enlightens at least one of you!