I do fear that Idiocracy might be a little accurate though. The people reproducing currently are the ones who do not consider their future or economics, while the smart ones who do, have less children.
I do fear that Idiocracy might be a little accurate though. The people reproducing currently are the ones who do not consider their future or economics, while the smart ones who do, have less children.
You weren't watching the magician's hands closely enough.
The role is fulfilled by tax dollars that come from the youngest working generation. Might be tech involved, but the revenue still pays for the tech.
It's the machines that actually pay for most things we enjoy today.
The keyboard you're typing your responses on, display you're reading this message from and virtually everything else in our silicon worlds* were not touched by human hands during production. Money is just an accounting method to allocate the production output.
Interestingly even the keyboards don't need that much of a human touch to type these days.
* other notable examples are almost 100% of the energy we use (electricity, hydrocarbons), majority of the global human caloric intake (grains, fats, sugars, potatoes, etc.), most raw materials (metals, fibers, hydrocarbons again, etc.), tools
And for the remainder, at this point it's just a matter of time before Humans Need Not Apply
The country that has the machines, wants cash. Where will you tax the revenue from? Are you hoping for some sort of technological charity? The Chinese will just ship us 10 million ass-wiping robots for the nursing homes for free, because they're a kind and benevolent people?
I understand things perfectly well.
If the country isn't self-reliant, no big deal... as long as they can pony up the cash. And your country can't do that either. Do you have any arguments that aren't pure sophistry?