IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
I asked Ian: > Why and how would robots come to have an autonomous > existence and be hired as wage-labourers? Phil responded: > They become self-reproducing and need to put bread or maybe > brake fluid in their children's mouths. This wouldn't give them an autonomous existence. We have the historical example of slavery that we can look to. Even if robots were self-reproducing their 'offspring' would become the property of the owner of the robots responsible for producing the new robots -- just as the children of slaves became the property of slaveowners. What incentive would the owners of a robot have to cede the rights to the ownership and use of robots produced by their robots? In solidarity, Jerry
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Gerald_A_Levy Fri 08 Apr 2005, 11:25 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Ian Wright Fri 08 Apr 2005, 20:25 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Gerald_A_Levy Sat 09 Apr 2005, 13:02 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Philip Dunn Sat 09 Apr 2005, 21:01 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Gerald_A_Levy Sat 09 Apr 2005, 22:40 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Gerald_A_Levy Fri 08 Apr 2005, 13:34 GMT
- [OPE-L] The Neoclassical Marxists, Gerald_A_Levy Fri 08 Apr 2005, 13:49 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Andrew Brown Thu 07 Apr 2005, 14:05 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Nicola Taylor Thu 07 Apr 2005, 15:42 GMT