The things normal people with healthy relationships want to be doing.
They're so incredibly out of touch.
Edit, found the interview: https://youtu.be/DPCvFy5BKeM?si=3c1yS2kSaOdlW56d&t=238
The things normal people with healthy relationships want to be doing.
They're so incredibly out of touch.
Edit, found the interview: https://youtu.be/DPCvFy5BKeM?si=3c1yS2kSaOdlW56d&t=238
agree - mostly. Anyone with a young child _and_ aging parents in poor health at the same time can tell you it's hell. Dealing with 1 at a time is a nice "calling" and way of giving back. both is...something i'd wish on my worst enemy lol.
(I'm not saying you specifically, but a lot of people complain all the time about how hard raising a kid is)
I thought that was obvious
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/child-care-expenses...
So a lot of people are blindsided by the reality of either, and both together can be unimaginably difficult.
Aside from cash and life stability issues - both very real - I suspect that one of the reasons for the drop in birth rates is that because of the Internet, more people are seeing what parenting involves before they start.
Previously it was more of a rosy and aspirational "Let's have kids!", now it's "You mean I'll be severely sleep deprived for years?!"
Robots could help with all of this just by doing basic chores and automating daily bureaucracy.
In the best of all possible worlds that would free up more time for personal relationships, which can get very stressed by unavoidable demands that are basically a full-time job.
‘Complaining’ is part of human discourse. Generally it’s acceptable to share the full range of day-to-day gripes, elation, full tragedies (e.g., deaths), and emotional heights with other humans.
You don’t want to hear constant griping about raising kids. I get that. I might not want to hear griping about national politics or Apple doing something or other. Cest le vie.
Your parents no doubt griped about raising you. You don’t have to have kids but someone has to! We’re going to gripe mate. No one is forcing you to listen.
unfortunately, this isn't one of those things you can plan your way out of. It's just part of dealing with life. if you're lucky, your parents will start having health problems once your kids are in school and don't need round the clock care at home. If you're unlucky, well, good luck lol
Then we decided that nuclear families were the way to go, so we gotta do everything ourselves now, and with both parents working because one breadwinner isn’t enough to live on.
in the utopia where I don't have to care about money, yes, I agree that it would be not an issue caring for both. :)
https://medium.com/@whystudying/multivariate-test-googles-41...
The application of robotics shouldn't be in places where human experience is valued, it should be in places where it isn't, like work.
Say what you want about the railway barons of the 19th century they all started out with nothing and knew the streets- because they came from them. This is what set America apart from Europe. The old "paperboy becomes millionaire" story.
But we're going back to aristocrats.
Human asking for fair treatment and to be respected: no, we will replace you with a machine instead
Eventual AGI asking for fair treatment and to be respected: of course, let me sacrifice a few more humans for your own entertainment my lord
While scrounging for food from the trash, since we'll all be unemployed and poor.
How do you feel about letting your parents use a dishwasher versus doing the dishes for them?
What about letting them see a doctor instead of taking care of all their medical issues yourself?
Obviously the task that is being outsourced matters. Nobody cares if a robot is taking out the trash. If this allows people more time to focus on real interactions, then that's a good thing
If that is what the above poster meant, they should have stated it more clearly because it did not come through.
Elderly need a lot of help with a lot of things. Maybe it's the trash, maybe it's helping them find their keys or remembering to take their medication.
What did you think they meant? I assume that if someone meant we need robots to provide companionship or emotional support for the elderly, they would say that instead.
A nurse who administers medication, prepares meals, and gets them out of the house and checks on their well being. Full time care for the elderly.
Family can still do the parts they want.
I'm not saying that robots can't help care for them, but rather that the proposed uses of robotics are optimizing for problems that are ultimately not the most important problems to those nearing death.
What exactly is your objection? It seems you are complaining both the robots will take over tasks and that they won't take over the important tasks
Should elderly not have dishwashers because it isnt the most important problem?
You wouldn't be living independently if you were dependent on a robot. The burden shifts from your family only as long as you can pay for and maintain the robot yourself and if that's the case you could probably pay humans to care for you anyway.
> Nursing homes and Elder care facilities also have huge labor problems, and throwing just money at the problem isn’t really an option.
The solution probably involves paying workers a hell of a lot more and breaking up the largest companies.
So it turns out that family members who traditionally cared for their own family would do it based on cultural and religious norms, deep bonds of love and affection, and/or the pressure that comes with knowing nobody else would step up and do it.
It is a fools paradise thinking that you can motivate mercenary caregivers, who are unrelated to their clients, in fact often foreigners, with giant stacks of cash, and expect consistent outcomes.
Traditionally, communities cared for each other, no matter if someone was their family member or not. The elderly, injured, sick, disabled, and orphaned have been cared for by those outside of their immediate families throughout all of human history. Our modern lives have made us unusually isolated, but it's still our nature to care for each other.
Therefore, these faithful women and men have cared for strangers and foreigners because of cultural norms, because of religious obligation (for which they freely volunteered) and from a selfless faith in God's love and salvation. It is this Gospel which they sought to spread by means of good works and prayer.
So basically, today those extremely compassionate and loyal people are being recruited as mercenaries. Not to renounce the world, not to take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, but simply to snag their certifications, bona fides and licenses for a paycheck. Ultimately, they are recapitulating the process by which religious orders formed up and were sent on mission.
Sadly, this mercenary, paycheck-to-paycheck model is not as cohesive or attractive as the religious life was in times past. You can have extremely compassionate people who are utterly burned out, and you can also have mercenaries who are not compassionate at all but just in it for the bucks, and they exhibit open contempt for their charges. And yet, these women and men still need to fend for themselves at home, and cover their own expenses, and feed themselves under a bare lightbulb at a kitchen table with 3 empty chairs. This is the true source of the "housing crisis", by the way, that women and men move out at 18, and they are all living alone and separately, and occupying small spaces, constantly at risk of eviction or displacement.
The women swallowed hook, line and sinker a story of girlboss domination, and smashing the patriarchy along with the glass ceiling, but ultimately they wind up as wage slaves, childless and free of any marital entanglements, and their employer has no more obligation to them beyond a 2-weeks notice, severance pay, and COBRA.
You could have searched much farther back and found the same thing. Communities have helped each other's needy long before Christianity and did not depend on religious obligation. Organized religions often provided a lot of funding and record keeping which certainly increased viability in historical record, but the practice existed both prior to and along side the larger religious institutions. It's believed that even proto-humans likely supported others outside of their own families as well, and the behavior has even been seen in other primates like chimpanzees, bonobos, and macaques.
> You can have extremely compassionate people who are utterly burned out
Requiring care facilities to adequately staff and making sure employees are well paid would go a long way to prevent employee burn out.
> you can also have mercenaries who are not compassionate at all but just in it for the bucks
There are people who take these jobs because they need a paycheck, but nobody is doing it because they expect to make a lot of money. It's extremely demanding yet low paying work, which means people who are just "in it for the bucks" will look for higher paying jobs that are much easier.
That said, corporate greed prioritizes driving down wages, providing low standards of care, and spending as little as possible on oversight to ensure that people are being properly cared for. That means that caring and compassionate people can be forced to leave to look for higher paying work. Many of the people who keep those jobs are there out of desperation. Stronger requirements for care facilities and higher pay for employees will allow care facilities to attract and retain people who are there for the right reasons, and efficiently remove employees who don't provide a high standard of care regardless of their personal motivations.
Whoa that happened to me too but I'm a dude, wtf? If only someone had forced me to join a monestary and work for free. :*(