Riots

[Sydney Grew]

It all depends on which set of humans will be organising and implementing the robot-programming, Mr Grew ... ?

Sorry, but no, it doesn't. The robots will not under any circumstances permit human beings to interfere with, interrupt, organise, or implement their programming - that is my whole point. They will be robots of perfect logical principle.

[amateur51]

Sorry, but no, it doesn't. The robots will not under any circumstances permit human beings to interfere with, interrupt, organise, or implement their programming - that is my whole point. They will be robots of perfect logical principle.

And who will have programmed the robots initially, oh Grewsome One?

[scottycelt]

I'll have you know, amateur51, that was no 'knee-jerk' response from Melanie. She has been banging-on consistently in a similar fashion for years, bless her, and any knee-jerk reaction has come from those who simply can't bear to hear what she is saying!.

[ahinton]

We should indeed talk with and listen to the victims. As to the perpetrators, they have foregone such niceties.

Of course wse should talk with and listen to the victims, but if we don't talk with and listen to the perpetrators, we'll be less likely to find out why they did what they did; we'll only have the vitcitms' word for that (if indeed any of them can face even trying to have such a word in the light of what they've just suffered); the victims have to look the consequencfes in the face; why should the perpatrators be exonerated from the responsibility to do the same?

I am in no sense condoning the actions of those perpetrators, of course, but I would hope that, if we share anything at all in terms of thoughts on these events and their aftermath (assuming that the worst is indeed over), it might be an interest in ensuring, as far as possible and by all reasonable means possible, that it doesn't occur again.

[scottycelt]

Sorry, but no, it doesn't. The robots will not under any circumstances permit human beings to interfere with, interrupt, organise, or implement their programming - that is my whole point. They will be robots of perfect logical principle.

So how will they suddenly and miraculously appear in that state? Will it be Robotic Creationism by the Great Robot in the Sky or maybe even, to suit atheistic robots, a Robotic 'Big Bang'? ..

[ahinton]

Absolutely, if ever there was a self-defeating, unthinking, emotional knee-jerk reaction it is this one, though news like the death this morning of the 68-year old man, who tried to put out a fire before being attacked, can make the rest of us automatically cry out for vengeance.

What use is vengeance? How will that improve or redeem the situation now or in the future? And what is "self-defeating", "unthinking", "emotional" or "knee-jerk" about a reaction that happens to point out the uncmnfortable but also inescapable truth that "whether you throw them out on the street, force them into further crime to support themselves or lock them up in prison, your taxes are going to have to support them"? That even you appear to accept the value of such a question seems apparent from your follow-up sentence

However, throwing the criminal and his family out onto the streets is hardly likely to improve matters for the rest of us.

You then observe that

Every criminal should be given the chance of redemption so that if he/she truly wishes to reform they have the opportunity to do so. That is, of course, after they have been given the most appropriately severe sentence for the crime(s) committed.

However, when they eventually emerge from prison, employers, quite naturally, will not exactly be falling over themselves to offer jobs, so I think there is certainly a case for the State to demand some form of continuous community work (removing graffiti, etc) before any social security payments are provided.

Whilst the first part of this is true and fair, the rest falls apart at the first word. For you, the only due punishment is prison, yet how can custodial sentences be meted out to all the perpetrators when the prisons in Britain are already overcrowded and there are not the staff to look after them and the prisoners in their care. especially in an economic climate in which expenditure on the police, prison and armed services is being cut? As to employers not exactly falling over themselves to offer jobs to ex-prisoners, the effect of this is in any case undermined by the painful fact that all too many of them will be as unlikely to offer them to people with no criminal record and first class honours degrees to their names either, simply because they can't afford to hire more staff; do bear in mind that all too many employers are already paying staff salaries out of their borrowings rather than their profits.

If this ultimately costs the taxpayer even more money then so be it.

That's all very well - and, in principle, it's not untrue - but it's a fact only as long as - and to the extent that - the taxpayer can still afford to pay; increasing unemployment means less tax revenues at the same time as more payment of state benefits so, as the government of the day has no money of its own but only that which it is able to extract from the taxpayer, it has to cut its coat according to its cloth or borrow heavily from anyone still willing to lend.

[ahinton]

It all depends on which set of humans will be organising and implementing the robot-programming, Mr Grew ... ?

...and on how many people can successfuly hack into their systems as people today hack into phones, computer systems, bank accounts et al...

[ahinton]

So how will they suddenly and miraculously appear in that state? Will it be Robotic Creationism by the Great Robot in the Sky or maybe even, to suit atheistic robots, a Robotic 'Big Bang'? ..

Or maybe someone will perform a Robotomy...

[Ariosto]

Reaping the seeds we have sown

We are now seeing the results of the ideas encouraged in the 1980's by people like Thatcher, who claimed that there was no such thing as society.

She started the era of greed and grab what you can, get rich quick, and ignore social values. Since then we have had similar governments who have encouraged the consumer society. The Bliars are a perfect example.

I've seen this coming for many years.

You see it on underground trains every day, in villages, in the workplace, in schools, in futher education establishments, people who have their heads down and do not want to communicate, and people who are only interested in their own gain.

And who are the most extreme in this attitude? The politicians of course.

But we should resist the crowings of posters such as Simon who want to turn Britain into some sort of fascist police state.

If you do not communicate with the perpetrators, then there is no hope.

[amateur51]

I'll have you know, amateur51, that was no 'knee-jerk' response from Melanie. She has been banging-on consistently in a similar fashion for years, bless her, and any knee-jerk reaction has come from those who simply can't bear to hear what she is saying!.

She's been knee-jerking for years, scotty - I yield to no-one in my contempt for the woman!

She has almost single-handedly made it impossible for Jew or Muslim or Gentile in UK to discuss sensibly the conflict in the Middle East and she has become the biggest wedge-driver in the business. Her glee that her apocalyptic ravings have apparently come to pass is almost palpable.

Poor Mr Rosenberg must yearn for a quiet breakfast time

[scottycelt]

What use is vengeance? How will that improve or redeem the situation now or in the future? And what is "self-defeating", "unthinking", "emotional" or "knee-jerk" about a reaction that happens to point out the uncmnfortable but also inescapable truth that "whether you throw them out on the street, force them into further crime to support themselves or lock them up in prison, your taxes are going to have to support them"? That even you appear to accept the value of such a question seems apparent from your follow-up sentence.

You misunderstand ... I was totally agreeing with FF's view not disputing it! I merely inferred that a cry for vengeance was understandable under the circumstances but certainly not the answer!

Whilst the first part of this is true and fair, the rest falls apart at the first word. For you, the only due punishment is prison, yet how can custodial sentences be meted out to all the perpetrators when the prisons in Britain are already overcrowded and there are not the staff to look after them and the prisoners in their care. especially in an economic climate in which expenditure on the police, prison and armed services is being cut? As to employers not exactly falling over themselves to offer jobs to ex-prisoners, the effect of this is in any case undermined by the painful fact that all too many of them will be as unlikely to offer them to people with no criminal record and first class honours degrees to their names either, simply because they can't afford to hire more staff; do bear in mind that all too many employers are already paying staff salaries out of their borrowings rather than their profits.

These are separate issues ... if we need to build more prisons or merely use them mainly for offences of violence so be it. Your other point about some employers not hiring even university graduates because of economic conditions is totally irrelevant to this discussion, surely.

That's all very well - and, in principle, it's not untrue - but it's a fact only as long as - and to the extent that - the taxpayer can still afford to pay; increasing unemployment means less tax revenues at the same time as more payment of state benefits so, as the government of the day has no money of its own but only that which it is able to extract from the taxpayer, it has to cut its coat according to its cloth or borrow heavily from anyone still willing to lend.

A fair point, and any major reforms might well have to wait until economic conditions improve however long that may take. However, if such reforms are reasonably successful they may well, in the long run, actually save the taxpayer money, in any case?

[scottycelt]

She's been knee-jerking for years, scotty - I yield to no-one in my contempt for the woman!

She has almost single-handedly made it impossible for Jew or Muslim or Gentile in UK to discuss sensibly the conflict in the Middle East and she has become the biggest wedge-driver in the business. Her glee that her apocalyptic ravings have apparently come to pass is almost palpable.

Poor Mr Rosenberg must yearn for a quiet breakfast time

You, if not Mr Rosenberg, could always turn to the lovely Anne Atkins, amateur ...

[Serial_Apologist]

No, it was stolen on March 16, 2011

Very sorry to hear that. They can be indispensable in many areas - the fact that that generally wasn't the case back in the 50s was the point I was trying to make. I'm just trying to remember what the bus service was like in Bristol.

[Serial_Apologist]

There is still hope though - fast forward five hundred years into the future when we will be governed by incorruptible and absolutely fair robots. That's the way is it not.

You've obviously seen "2001 - A Space Odyssey" then, Sydney.

[Sydney Grew]

So how will they suddenly and miraculously appear in that state? Will it be Robotic Creationism by the Great Robot in the Sky or maybe even, to suit atheistic robots, a Robotic 'Big Bang'? ..

No miracle, at least not in that sense. It will be implemented by people like you and other contributors to this thread. Think of slavery: there came a time when it was generally realized that to leave the matter to unreformed human nature would not morally do, and it was outlawed. Then think of the hanging of homo-sexualists: there came a time when it was generally realized that to leave the matter to unreformed human nature would not morally do, and it was abolished. In just the same way it will one day be generally realized that the maintenance of the social order and civil governance by politicians judges and police-men - i.e. by human beings with their unreformed human nature - will not morally do, and that it must be replaced by a better system of incorruptible robots with a perfect knowledge of the science of morals, and the ability always to act in accordance with the precepts thereof.

But give it five hundred years, as I said. Among other things we must first learn to trust the robots.