Anyone else thinks that World War Z was a bad book?
For me, Brooks tries to give a serious global perspective of a zombie apocalypse, but his portrayal of different cultures and real world geopolitical forces falls flat.
I know it's pointless complaining about a lack of realism in a novel about zombies, but it ruins my immersion when the author seems to get his impression of the world from American news and the Karate Kid.

>> ^Psychologic:
^ I don't think anyone is seriously questioning whether humans will be required for jobs... it's more of a question of how many will be needed. With people living longer and healthier lives, many of whom are willing to stay in the workforce, the question is whether or not job creation will outpace the growth of the available workforce. I have my doubts, but I can't exactly see the future.
Technology won't completely replace manual labor, but it will slowly reduce the number of people needed for any given task. It isn't some cataclysmic event, but I think that people with limited education will find it increasingly difficult to find jobs over the next few decades.


But isn't the core of the automation argument about processes replacing our jobs? Where else did these jobs go? In many cases, software and hardware has caused a job-loss, but my observation is that many more jobs will be created to maintain automation than jobs that are taken away.

Also, I disagree that people with less education will be out of jobs. I work in a technical field that hires people with little to no education. Obviously if you want a job as a programmer, you'll need to be outside this demographic -- but take this into consideration: over half of our company is related to customer support or quality assurance, which does not require higher education. They are full time positions and there is no end in site, only growth. We also have many positions which require you to simply have the proper skillset, not a degree.

As more and more technology is introduced into the general population, people gain the necessary skills to perform these new jobs. From my vantage point (which is very much a global perspective of new trends not seen until halfway through the first decade of the twenty-first century) this appears to be the way our world is turning. The company I work for, in fact, has spawned leeches in many other countries, namely China, where jobs like the ones I assure you require no education employ entire factories of workers.

EDIT: Twenty-first century, not twentieth. Old habits die hard.

All the evidence presented to me indicates that there exists no supernatural being (a god), thus my conclusion is that there is no god. If any evidence has been introduced to other people, I would like to be shown this so that my conclusion can be strengthened or invalidated.

I can sympathize with Schmawy's "lovie dovie" approach; we don't want to tell grandma that the Lord she has worshiped all her life isn't real, but I don't think about religion from a personal perspective, I think about it on a global perspective. On the global scale "feelings" are not very important, but the truth is; truth is derived from analyzing the evidence, not faith.

If we as a society want to survive, we need to shed our infantile "skin" which is religion. Human technological evolution has worked in spite of religion, which in my mind serves to dumb us down and control our actions, not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of itself and its stewards.

(edit: note that this time, I'm not drunk... )

One of the things about living here, is how do I present a fair, balanced view of what its really like..? This clip mentions a few major upsides, and on the whole, it isnt wrong, per se, but is there any major downsides and misery that goes on in Norway that doesnt get a mention here? Well, after thinking about it; not really, I mean lets face it, we've got murders, we've got stealing, we've got drug addicts, our healthcare isnt perfect, taxes, gas prices, and more importantly, beer prices are sky-high, but overall, are any of these things really paralyzing to our society? Do these things invalidate the progress shown in this video? No. Overall, we score on "Highest standard of living" for a reason, its because it really is good. So what causes it? Oil? Well, there is no denying that oil has made this nation filthy rich, and I guess any nation has the right to envy us that.. But look at our neighbor, Sweden, admittedly, they do have less money overall, but they arent doing to bad, infact, in a global perspective, they are just about equal to Norway, and also, from a global perspective, their politics are basically the same.

one of the most often cited delusions from the US perspective on our whole "social democracy" model, is that we are drowning in taxes.. and my answer to that, is simply, "have you thought this through ?" I mean our high taxes have basically one major downside, outsourcing, and that hasnt killed us yet. What most americans seems to think is that if they pay more taxes, their private economy collapses, but why should it? even if every american paid 40% taxes, if EVERYBODY did it, it wouldnt really matter, because wages would go up etc.. the whole point is to find a stable, sustainable model with the potential for growth. If it helps you and your country it doesnt matter whether you pay 5%, 30% or 80% taxes, the important thing is the balance towards good results.. Its simple scare tactics to say that "THEY will take YOUR money", it just doesnt work like that.

As a rational human, and most especially a scientist, one is forced at some point to contemplate the God hypothesis. A rational person concludes that there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis, and rejects it.

As the video says, that does not mean that we should attempt to "disprove" God. It's a waste of resources on a rejected hypothesis. Read a book or play some guitar instead. Similarly, it is a poisonous waste of time to attempt to "prove" the God hypothesis. It can't be done, and when you couch dogma in quasi-scientific terms as an attempt at offering "evidence" for an unscientific premise, it just makes you look ridiculous.

Hence, Banana Guy. And all of the "Intelligent Design" crap. And anyone that ever tries to tell you the Bible is an accurate primary source of historical events. And so on and so forth. What's worse, if you already are a "believer" and are trying to come across as an "expert" with "evidence", you have two immediate problems; inductive logic and an existing predisposition to constructing your global perspective and moral code on faith.

You accept a hypothesis that can't be proven as sacred from the beginning and then pervert the scientific method in the hopes that people will take you seriously.


/waits for gorgonheap

I think the media lost it's spine years ago, everything I have come to rely on is international media sources, because there you get to hear far more issues from a global perspective.