Human Rights Violations

[alxian]

Should people in the "housekeeping" profession be considered a human rights violation?

 

humans full of potential should not be allowed to do basic housekeeping chores or other menial tasks. it is demeaning and wasteful considering what that human could accomplish.

 

 

instead

 

would it be preferrable to make GM clones, created specifically for housekeeping duties, brains modified before birth to have no more capacity than required to do household chores

 

or have an android buttler equally specialized only for the task of housekeeping. like those new japanese super lifelike bots in only a few more revisions they should be able to have voice rec, be autonmously mobile, with connectivity to a differed home network they don't even need much onboard logic processing beyond voice rec and tactile response.

 

ditto for taxi drivers, personal conveyances and taxis should drive themselves.

[Chacmool]

Are you serious? Then a whole lot of other "menial" professions would qualify as well. And if all the people holding those jobs got replaced by clones or robots or whatever, how are they supposed to earn a living? Or do only "clever" people doing "intelligent" jobs deserve a place in society?

 

There are more than enough REAL human rights violations to worry about. Rather get involved in those causes.

[infamous]

Are you serious?

 

There are more than enough REAL human rights violations to worry about. Rather get involved in those causes.

I agree Chacmool, it's a little difficult to follow this line of logic to a reasonable conclusion.

[Eclogite]

May I ask chacmool and infamous to re-read alxian's post. He asks "Should people in the "housekeeping" profession be considered a human rights violation?" He does not state that they should be.

He asks "would it be preferrable......etc". He does not state that it would be preferable.

It seems to me he is raising an important topic - society's attitude to those in 'menial' jobs - in a novel and provocative way. He is suggesting (I think) that many of us in society are guilty of ignoring or looking down on housewifes and shop assistants and the like, then asking - is this right? Should anyone have to engage in such drudgery?, especially when we are nearing a point where technology could handle many of these roles.

I think these points are worthy of more consideration than either of you have given.

And chacmool, alxian seems to have more regard for his fellows than you. He thinks that everyone is intelligent enough to be above such tasks; you appear to think that is all some can rise to.

And alxian to answer your original questions, it is a form of human rights violation. I look forward to the time when it is the most serious human rights violation occuring on the face of the planet. When we then set about correcting it we must remember that some people like what we consider to be menial tasks. (I'm considering taking up taxi driving in my retirment - please don't take that away from me.)

[Chacmool]

He is suggesting (I think) that many of us in society are guilty of ignoring or looking down on housewifes and shop assistants and the like, then asking - is this right? Should anyone have to engage in such drudgery?, especially when we are nearing a point where technology could handle many of these roles.

I think these points are worthy of more consideration than either of you have given.

Point taken. It may be true that some people look down on people in certain jobs. Of course, there is absolutely no reason for this - every job is important. However, a society requires a wide variety of functions to be carried out, and people choose their occupations based on preference, ability, skills and (unfortunately, for some) availability. I'm sure many people don't enjoy their jobs, whether or not these are "menial".

 

Who gets to decide what is "menial" and "drudgery"? One person might love the job another one hates. Also, replacing large numbers of active members of the workforce will have a significant impact on the economy. How will people support themselves?

 

And chacmool, alxian seems to have more regard for his fellows than you. He thinks that everyone is intelligent enough to be above such tasks; you appear to think that is all some can rise to.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I recognise the fact that most people are capable of achieving anyting, and are often only limited by unfortunate circumstances. I'm offended by your statement.

When we then set about correcting it we must remember that some people like what we consider to be menial tasks. (I'm considering taking up taxi driving in my retirment - please don't take that away from me.)

Exactly. Who are we to go around deciding which jobs are suitable and which aren't?

[alxian]

the same people who decide a 180 lb child of 5'6" - 6' is too young to be working and forces that child to go to school

 

people should be educated to a minimum standard something like 120 IQ points (which technically is no longer a supported standard of intelligence) and once educated can train in a specific field.

 

menial jobs would be ones that offer very little stimulation

 

taxi driver of course is a very stimulating profession (it makes your brain bigger), i simply added it to reenforce the notion that most of the service industry is "menial".

 

 

 

also while we can start somewhere, since most of us do nothing to rectify the more heinous human rights violation in the "world", starting at home generally is easiest and even in our neighborhoods we aren't exposed to the true horrors the other half of the popuplation (the greater half some could argue, endure everyday. the real problems are too far away and don't impact is directly so we feel powerless to stop them. but hopefully someone will.

 

starting small imo is the way to get it done. making our society a shining example to the "rest of the world".

[rockytriton]

Just because you think it's demeaning to do housekeeping doesn't make it so. You may find it hard to believe, but some people don't want to have to think hard when they work, they want to just do a few things that they have become good at and can do efficiently and get paid for it. Not everyone wants to become a doctor or a scientist. In my opinion, it's very arrogant to suggest that people aren't doing useful things when they are doing things that you feel are below you. Also, your suggestion to use clones with their brains modified before birth is a definite human rights violation.

[alxian]

they are examples

 

You may find it hard to believe, but some people don't want to have to think hard when they work,

 

its my personal philosophy. so far in every job i've held i've had very little at all to do. for the last five years i've managed to remain employed without any formal skills nor any real will to absorb corporate training. (current;y working @ HP corporate HQs as an internal IT support tech, and i like know ziltch from networking.. its totally amazing i haven't been fired yet.)

 

so i mean if i can pull off this kind of job with no formal training imagine what senora espinoza can do if she had half as much training as i.

 

and yes imo i think housekeeping in menial in some circumstances, when the home owner could give less a toot about how they live and treat the housekeeper like furniture, or worse. (in the case of illegal aliens working as housekeepers because they can't do anything else [or risk deportation], which was originally what i was going to post but i didn't think that would have flown so well, as it stands at least one person understood what i was getting at.)

 

 

i'd like to argue that people aren't given the tools they need to succeed, i'd like to argue that once they are put to work in stilmulating professions that they'd have the will to succeed, but having lived the past 5 years in my shoes i can attest to the fact people will fall through the cracks willingly, the argument is those people who are willing to fail, must have been somewhat traumatized into believing they should expect nothing but, and those people who do have potential and have no way to achieve it when it would take so little to bring their potential to light, its a travesty that so many humans live with no formal education at all, to then bless them with menial jobs because they are "untrainable" seems to me like a violation of their basic rights to dignity. i'm sure some of them would love to be able to be doing somehing else and very few, the real professionals what to do what they do because the specifically train to do it.

[Eclogite]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I recognise the fact that most people are capable of achieving anyting, and are often only limited by unfortunate circumstances. I'm offended by your statement.

It was not my intention to give offense. I carefully phrased my remarks as "you appear to think this is all some can rise to". [Emphasis added.]

I based this on your statements:"And if all the people holding those jobs got replaced by clones or robots or whatever, how are they supposed to earn a living? Or do only "clever" people doing "intelligent" jobs deserve a place in society?"

This really does seem to suggest that they are not capable of anything else. I have re-read it several times and that is definitely the sense it conveys to me. I am pleased to hear that is not what you meant.

Again, I had no intention of giving offense.

[rockytriton]

people should be educated to a minimum standard something like 120 IQ points (which technically is no longer a supported standard of intelligence) and once educated can train in a specific field.

 

You can't educate someone to an IQ of 120 points. Your IQ is not a measure of how much you know.

[alxian]

its how well you can think, organize your experiences into coherent thought and use that knowledge to achieve goals.

 

and yes i'm aware that IQ is obsolete i said as much

 

however you can teach a person how to learn. you can't whoever make them smart or willing to work. .

[alxian]

yeah.. um.. 3 billenia of life evolving yeilds your current body. susseptible to a wide range of maladies and bleeds and factures ever so easily. thanks to all that evolution we have several systems in our body that are totally useless to modern man and several easy adaptations just begging for a little genetic tweaking to unlock. further to unlocking the potential of our minds and senses and remedying the fragility and fleeting nature of our bodies is fixing up the natural world we've been so callously destroying in the name of progress for so many centuries. some organisms on this planet live orders of magnitude longer than we do, why should they be so priveledged if we are the dominant terran species?

 

it should take man less than 3 years to fully rebuild our bodies into near immortal hyper efficient machines, (machine being a biological organism and not androids, something like a superhuman, or as chris moriarty et cie call them, "post humans").

 

this mass delusion of a "god" creature has impeded progress long enough. where cloning and genetic modifications are the highest possible offence to a higher power for some IMO if i were a god and had built up a planet such as earth and crowned it with a species such as man i'd totally expect him to evolve far beyond my expectations while respecting the rest of my creation. our DNA isn't on loan to us, it is our birthright, our heritage and legacy to perfect and make as efficient and powerful as possibles so that we can be the guardians of eden as we were expected to be but so spectacularly failed at. its time man asserted himself without irrational moral oversight and created his own eden out of whats left of the world, modifying himself, his plants and animals, entire biomes for perfect harmony diversity and efficiency.

[Kizzi]

Is it a violation when Person 1 USES Person 2 to make MORE money for himself (Person 1), just because he has a few extra braincells?

 

Or is it an even playing field where everyone has an equal opportunity?

 

Who's in charge?

 

Kizzi :hihi:

[infamous]

May I ask chacmool and infamous to re-read alxian's post. He asks "Should people in the "housekeeping" profession be considered a human rights violation?" He does not state that they should be.

I must disagree, in his second paragraph he states, "humans full of potential should not be allowed to do basic housekeeping chores or other menial tasks".

 

 

He asks "would it be preferrable......etc". He does not state that it would be preferable.

Not so, he says; "should not be allowed"

 

 

It seems to me he is raising an important topic - society's attitude to those in 'menial' jobs

Very true, and he's also drawing his own conclusions and suggesting that these are human rights violations.

[Eclogite]

Nicely spotted. It seems I was giving my interpretation of what I would have meant if I had written the post. His underlying thesis remains an interesting one though. However, as someone else noted, it will be some time before these particular violations should find themselves at the top of the priority list. (Though I like the riposte that we should give attention to the small matters, close to home, that we do have some conrol over.)

[infamous]

Nicely spotted. It seems I was giving my interpretation of what I would have meant if I had written the post.

Understandable Eclogite.

 

His underlying thesis remains an interesting one though. However, as someone else noted, it will be some time before these particular violations should find themselves at the top of the priority list. (Though I like the riposte that we should give attention to the small matters, close to home, that we do have some conrol over.)

Yes I agree Eclogite, there does seem to be an inequuity involved here but like the old saying goes, "that's life". I persoanlly think that a cast system will always exist to one extent or another. I think it is truely unavoidable, some responsiblity must be shared by the individuals willing to take these jobs also. Kind of ties in with the law of supply and demand doesn't it?

[Erasmus00]

people should be educated to a minimum standard something like 120 IQ points (which technically is no longer a supported standard of intelligence) and once educated can train in a specific field.

 

The IQ test doesn't work like that. First, your IQ is thought to be relatively stable throughout your life, particularly so after adolescence. Education doesn't increase the score. Also, the test is standardized, 100 is defined to be the median score, so half of all people will always be under 100.

-Will