That’s not the point, the sun’s still a cause of cancer. I’m not saying that phones don’t contribute, but they’re not the only technology and the damage isn’t noticeable over the life span of a human.
But that’s the thing. This tech hasn’t been around long enough to determine what the damage could be over our life spans.
The military have been using microwave technology (early comms, radar, etc…) since before 1947. In 1947 the first microwave oven (using that technology) was released to civilians. MOs run on 2.4GHz like wifi. Hell, even my RC transmitters emit RFR.
Forgot to reply to this before, but the amount of radiation is small, if it wasn’t you’d keel over and die in about 5 years. There’s very strict regulations as to how much energy we can put into the environment for exactly this reason. If the threat was so massive, governments would ban the technology.
What would happen if we abolished money and made every single possible process (done by humans today) automated?
Aren’t these two separate questions? I don’t see how they’re linked
Maybe I should have said ‘by’ and not ‘and’. My thinking is that if we made everything automated, humans wouldn’t need to work, you’d just get robots doing everything and robots servicing robots (humans only come in as a last resort). If everything is done by robots humans wouldn’t need to work and we wouldn’t need money. Sure, we’d fight over other things, but it’s a massive problem to solve.
It’s certainly heading this way but I don’t like it at all. The more automation we get, the more jobs we lose. Our advancements in tech could lead to the end of us when also considering AI and our smartphone addictions, but maybe I’m straying away too far off the topic
That’s the point, we don’t have jobs because money won’t be needed.
Hmm I don’t know honestly. Perhaps that leads us to another question: could we have a world without money?
We’re going in circles here. That was my initial question. LOL
interesting arguments from both of you guys…
Well…if we (as humans) will found a way to use robots everywhere and completely (not only manufactoring, but sales too, or for example we can do our stuff from home/with pc etc…), then we don’t need payments hence we don’t need money…problem would be how do we buy our own stuff…
We don’t, because robots make everything and morality isn’t an issue, you can walk into a shop right now and walk out with whatever you want.
It would be really cool like that! But I guess we’re still far away from that reality… we still need people do some stuff (like for restaurants,hotels/ artistic things…)
This is hypothetical question, this change would need to happen almost immediately, everywhere and for everything.
Oops my bad lol!
I don’t think this would work, because then you get insane people raiding the shops of all items
So we want to picture a Disney’s Wall-E type of Scenario, where humans have their faces stuffed and don’t do a damn thing lol.
I personally think, if such were to happen, we would not experience “life” anymore.
Though when we get too comfy, consequences can tend to happen. Nothing is infinite, all is finite.
yeah! Now I see many problems popping out in that scenario!
We still need to do some things…or we end up being lazy and idiotic…
Yes, life would be dull if we had nothing to do. Many people need to be “guided” so to speak, this is why we have the set system of people in control “rulers”. This is what leads me to believe that most people would not know what to do without said guidance. We are born and are guided through our parents, then picking up on the eventual patterns in society. They just go with the flow, following pretty much the “success” checklist society itself designed, to progress of course
I have a question
Do you believe every piece of information mentioned on the news?
Think about it this way, if you weren’t “physically” there, how would you know said actions caused said reactions?
Nice reply and nice questions!
NO! And to link with the other question…
Sometimes is difficult to understand if news are true…you can check on the Internet, etc…but… how can you say which site/journalist/writer says the truth?
It’s like in a court trial… every part says its own “truth”, with evidences, witnesses, etc… BUT again… who can say one part or another is saying the truth? And that proofs are real or fake?
We saw many times people condemned while they were innocent for example… or investigations stopping because police or whoever can’t go on for some reason…
Personal truth is based on experience. For example we can see 2 people fighting on the street and not know why. They both will have their “truth” based on their perception on actions, but don’t know necessary which one is actually factual as you have not seen the act play out before you.
Reminds me of this song by a late great… I thank my late Uncle for getting me into this man,