In an Age of Robots, One to Clean the House? Still but a Dream

[Disinfo Agent]

As a counterpoint to samkent's Star Trek thread (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/81387-star-trek-screwed-us-up.html) (maybe), here's an article in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/science/25angi.html?_r=1):


'Researchers are far, far from being able to design a Rosie Jetson or a Data, or even a Diaper Data. You can ask a human toddler to bring you the red ball from behind the sofa, and the toddler will comply. Ask a machine to perform the same seemingly ho-hum task? “We’re not even close,” said Seth Teller of M.I.T.'

This bit is inaccurate, though:


'Robots are involved in many everyday aspects of life, even if we don’t realize it.” The word comes from the Czech “robota,” meaning slave [...]'
'The word robota means literally work, labor or serf labor, and figuratively "drudgery" or "hard work" in Czech and many Slavic languages.' Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot#Etymology)

[Moose]

I don't need a machine to retrieve balls from behind the couch. I have two cats only too happy to take care of that for me. What I need is a very quiet Rhoomba that won't freak my cats out on a daily basis.

[geonuc]

Roombas work surprisingly well. :)

Doesn't freak my cats out at all.

[Disinfo Agent]

I don't need a machine to retrieve balls from behind the couch. I have two cats only too happy to take care of that for me.How about some robocats to retrieve the balls? :p

[Moose]

*grin* I saw a video the other day of a youngling cat riding the Roomba as it did its thing. The Roomba seemed to be turning and redoing the same spot(s) repeatedly because the cat's tail was dragging along behind it. I think it was seeing the tail as something it wanted to clean up.

[Moose]

How about some robocats to retrieve the balls? :p

Do robocats snuggle very well? I consider that a mission critical feature.

[KaiYeves]

We need a roomba at our house, but my mom says our dog would attack it. Well, you can't fight the future forever...

[PraedSt]

Housekeeping robots on stage

In Japan (where else?): Humans and robots acting together (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7749932.stm)

The play, which had its première at Osaka University, is one of Japan's first robot-human theatre productions. The machines were specially programmed to speak lines with human actors and move around the stage with them.

The play, called Hataraku Watashi (I, Worker), is set in the near future. It focuses on a young couple who own two housekeeping robots, one of which loses its motivation to work.

In the play, the robot complains that it has been forced into boring and demeaning jobs and enters into a discussion with the humans about its role in their lives.
Next- robot unions? :)

[Frog march]

you just need to make a workaholic robot that does everything you ask it to and when there is no more, it goes out for the night with its buddies and picks up all the litter, and mends fences etc in the country side.


And when there is nothing left to do, it closes down and enters a matrix world of unending chores.

[jokergirl]

My Roomba is happily vacuuming the kitchen for me as I sit here and chat... I mean WORK! WORK!

;)

[mugaliens]

Do robocats snuggle very well? I consider that a mission critical feature.

The purr is easy to duplicate, as is the warmth and the texture of the fur. To date, however, nothing beats the automatically adjusting kinematic features of felis catus.

[Ara Pacis]

As a counterpoint to samkent's Star Trek thread (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/81387-star-trek-screwed-us-up.html) (maybe), here's an article in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/science/25angi.html?_r=1):


'Researchers are far, far from being able to design a Rosie Jetson or a Data, or even a Diaper Data. You can ask a human toddler to bring you the red ball from behind the sofa, and the toddler will comply. Ask a machine to perform the same seemingly ho-hum task? “We’re not even close,” said Seth Teller of M.I.T.'

I'm not sure why. It would seem a rather straightforward from a language parsing and coding point of view. Navigation is currently managed fairly well. The only real stumper would be physical object identification with verbal referant, which could be programmed in directly (via a library of objects) or learned through 3D archtype recognition program.

[mugaliens]

I'm not sure why. It would seem a rather straightforward from a language parsing and coding point of view. Navigation is currently managed fairly well. The only real stumper would be physical object identification with verbal referant, which could be programmed in directly (via a library of objects) or learned through 3D archtype recognition program.

I'm thinking the latter. And dispense with the visual recognition approach, unless absolutely necessary. Blind people do nearly everything sighted people do strictly by sense of touch and a knowledge of three-dimensional artifacts (cabinet, pan, stove-top...) combined with spatial awareness. Those are easily programmed into a computer-controlled robot. Armed with that, first, a visual subroutine would be additive, not not required in many circumstances.

[Damburger]

I think the desire for robotic domestic servants is slightly disturbing. People want things to get done but are too damn lazy to do anything themselves. Slavery isn't socially acceptable any more and servants costs money (so essentially you still have to do some work to get housework done, you just get to choose what). That leaves creating acceptable slaves.

Wanting without motivation to do what is necessary to fulfill your wants is a childish thing. An mature person would either get off their arse and help themselves, or through acts of will reduce their wants to a level more realistic given how much work you can do.

[Neverfly]

When given a choice between work and laziness, humans always choose laziness.

Why would someone want an automatic transmission?
I have asked many people that. Their answer is always the same.
"I get tired of shifting gears all the time."

Do they also get tired of pushing the stupid pedals?!
Apparently so- that's what Cruise Control is for.:rolleyes:

How much effort does it take to shift gears?! Seriously!

Technology most certainly lifts the burdens. But we also seem to want to take things to extremes.
Robots can be a very good thing.
So can cars, fax machines etc.

And yet, here in the USA, we are so spoiled rotten, we remain mostly ignorant and get more and more obese.

[Moose]

People want things to get done but are too damn lazy to do anything themselves.

That's a fairly big assumption, and one I find at least somewhat offensive.

Actually, a roomba (or rather, a pair of roombas, one per floor) would do two things for me that have nothing at all to do with laziness.

My cats shed. A lot. It gets everywhere, and it's visible. I'd literally have to vacuum the house every day in order to keep up. I simply can't. There's too much else to do in a day (especially if we get another snow season like last year). If I have to pick and choose which chores are going to get done and which aren't, then there's room to improve how I get things done. I'd much rather spend time doing other things.

Second, as a prog, clever things that do pathfinding are very cool to me. I'd be content to have them so that my cats have fun getting rides.

Last. Should we go back to the "good old days" where monks and scribes would spend their lives manually duplicating and hand illuminating books for the rare few who could read and afford it?

You're using a computer to communicate. Are you too lazy to hand-post letters to all BAUT members? Or are you doing it because it's a genuinely better way of communicating?

We use machines to reduce effort, yes, but we do it so that we can direct our efforts to more productive/worthwhile/enjoyable tasks.

Besides, vacuum cleaners are labor saving devices too. We _should_ be using brooms. Oops, labor saving. Never mind. You need to be cleaning your house using only your own body parts and fluids, as nature clearly intented, or risk being thought of as lazy.

Where do you draw the line, and should one be drawn at all?

Okay, so most of this post is a slippery-sloped strawman. Sure. But comparing the use of an inanimate, non-sentient tool to slavery is both offensive and blatant hyperbole.

[Neverfly]

We ARE lazy, Moose.
Where does one draw the line of how much laziness is acceptable?
I would say when it's impractical to be lazy, yet people still do it. Even that is still fuzzy though.

[jokergirl]

Second, as a prog, clever things that do pathfinding are very cool to me. I'd be content to have them so that my cats have fun getting rides.


Just a minor nitpick, but the roomba doesn't do any pathfinding - it picks a random path and has a good idea of how big the room is judging by "time-before-bump", but it covering every spot in your room is a probability function, not an absolute :)
It does have a development kit for programmers and geeks though so if you want to poke at pathfinding you can.

The Elecrolux Trilobite does pathfinding, as do some others, but they're not NEARLY as fun to watch! (They go much slower and they leave a streak at the corners as they never bump into anything.)

And I'm all for not having to play an active part in housework except for emptying and cleaning the roomba occasionally. (And carrying it back to its crib if I locked it out by accident and it ran out of batt.)

;)

[Moose]

Just a minor nitpick, but the roomba doesn't do any pathfinding - it picks a random path and has a good idea of how big the room is judging by "time-before-bump", but it covering every spot in your room is a probability function, not an absolute :)

Okay. I'm assuming it does, however, keep track of how to get back to his recharger and pathfinds back to it from time to time (unless you lock it out of its room)? Or is it guessing that too?

[jokergirl]

Okay. I'm assuming it does, however, keep track of how to get back to his recharger and pathfinds back to it from time to time (unless you lock it out of its room)? Or is it guessing that too?

It has an IR sensor that it uses to find the cradle and "walls" (beams of IR that mark lines it may not cross). It just homes in on the beam :D

;)

[Moose]

So if it wanders into another room, it could potentially wander around lost until it faints?

[Ara Pacis]

I'm thinking the latter. And dispense with the visual recognition approach, unless absolutely necessary. Blind people do nearly everything sighted people do strictly by sense of touch and a knowledge of three-dimensional artifacts (cabinet, pan, stove-top...) combined with spatial awareness. Those are easily programmed into a computer-controlled robot. Armed with that, first, a visual subroutine would be additive, not not required in many circumstances.

Can you tell the color of something from touch? :-) gotta have some sorta visual system if you're gonna use chromatic recognition.

As to the slavery argument of robots, it's a non-starter. Simple machines do not have rights. The worst argument you'll get from a lever is a groan. We use machines to perform simpler tasks so that we, the highly programed biological machines, can engage in higher level tasks, like running space programs. Or should astronomers spend less time lazily sitting behind their telescopes and more time swatting carpets?

WRT to the "epidemic" of obesity, there's some suggestion that it is in part a result of poor dietary information and food industry misinformation.

[jokergirl]

So if it wanders into another room, it could potentially wander around lost until it faints?

Yup, but n my experience it usually ends up going back after a while unless it gets stuck in a small space.
The main problem for me is that it sometimes will drag around the base station when it tries to dock, so it will endlessly try to adjust/chase the station around the room until it faints.
Double sided tape and/or walls help.

;)

[Neverfly]

Double sided tape and/or walls help.

;)

Double sided walls?

[Neverfly]

WRT to the "epidemic" of obesity, there's some suggestion that it is in part a result of poor dietary information and food industry misinformation.

Well now... This one is novel.

I'll keep that in mind when observing how folks in technologically cushy areas are fat and folks not in technologically areas are not.

A curse upon those fiendish food manufacturers for lying to me!:mad:

[Moose]

Heh. Took a look at the electrolux one. $850 US. ...Yeah, I'll stick with chasing my own hairball dustbunnies around for now, thanks.

[Moose]

A curse upon those fiendish food manufacturers for lying to me!:mad:

There was a recent McDonald's ad that actually argued that their fries were healthy.

We bear ultimate responsibility for what we eat, of course, but marketers _are_ disseminating misinformation and/or outright lies. They're part of the problem. One society both has the right and the duty to address. Truth-in-advertising laws are not a legitimate hardship for these companies.

[mugaliens]

Technology most certainly lifts the burdens. But we also seem to want to take things to extremes.
Robots can be a very good thing.
So can cars, fax machines etc.

And yet, here in the USA, we are so spoiled rotten, we remain mostly ignorant and get more and more obese.

The other day, I walked out of work with three others, headed for lunch. As we were walking through the parking lot, they piled into one of their cars and said, "aren't you coming?"

"Sure," I said. "But it's right over there," and pointed to the restuarant. Surprisingly, they jetted away.

When they arrived, there I was, sitting at a table, and they couldn't believe that I'd gotten there ahead of them.

I measured my paces - it was 180 yards from work to walk there. I walked back along the road, and it was closer to 500 yards, at 15 mph, which doesn't count the three stop signs and one stoplight.

Lazy? Yep.

[Ara Pacis]

Well now... This one is novel.

Not really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fructose_Corn_Syrup#Health_effects


I'll keep that in mind when observing how folks in technologically cushy areas are fat and folks not in technologically areas are not.Technologically cushy in what regard? Technologically induced food surplus (or increased energy density of food) or technologically reduced labor requirement? Since this thread is primarily about labor, I'll assume the latter. Studies suggest that exercise without changes in diet only produce low weight loss. (link (http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003817/frame.html)) Thus, we may safely conclude that labor savings by robotic servants is less likely to cause obesity than diet. We can look up the caloric expenditures of housekeeping if you still want to argue that point.


A curse upon those fiendish food manufacturers for lying to me!:mad:

When it's in their best interests...
Pro-HFCS TV ad 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0)
Pro-HFCS TV ad 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgXPt564Q)

[Neverfly]

Not really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fructose_Corn_Syrup#Health_effects

Technologically cushy in what regard? Technologically induced food surplus (or increased energy density of food) or technologically reduced labor requirement? Since this thread is primarily about labor, I'll assume the latter. Studies suggest that exercise without changes in diet only produce low weight loss. (link (http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003817/frame.html)) Thus, we may safely conclude that labor savings by robotic servants is less likely to cause obesity than diet. We can look up the caloric expenditures of housekeeping if you still want to argue that point.



When it's in their best interests...
Pro-HFCS TV ad 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0)
Pro-HFCS TV ad 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgXPt564Q)

Nonsense. You post links and state your case- Nice... But you're misstating it.

Sure a ROOMBA alone is not going to cause obesity.
But factor in ALL the little luxuries of a technologically cushy society.
What is it that we do?
We sit around watching American Idol.
Then we go to the GYM and plop our fat butts on the treadmill for thirty minutes.
Then, after all that strenuous work, we get all hungry and hit the Jack in the Box Drive Thru.

It's a lifestyle.

We CAN. So we DO.

Your links don't answer to the basic question. Nor do your claims.

[PraedSt]

Not really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fructose_Corn_Syrup#Health_effects

Technologically cushy in what regard? Technologically induced food surplus (or increased energy density of food) or technologically reduced labor requirement? Since this thread is primarily about labor, I'll assume the latter. Studies suggest that exercise without changes in diet only produce low weight loss. (link (http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003817/frame.html)) Thus, we may safely conclude that labor savings by robotic servants is less likely to cause obesity than diet. We can look up the caloric expenditures of housekeeping if you still want to argue that point.



When it's in their best interests...
Pro-HFCS TV ad 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0)
Pro-HFCS TV ad 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgXPt564Q)

This is a little confusing. You seem to be saying:

1. Sugar is fattening.
2. Exercise won't work as well unless you eat properly.
3. People selling stuff tend to lie and exaggerate.

Now:

4. All of this seems common sense to me.
5. And you also seem to be aware of them.
6. So I presume you think others know, or should know.

Yet:

7. You appear to blame sellers for making people fat.

What am I missing here? :confused:

[mugaliens]

Technologically cushy in what regard?

I would say we're technologically cushy with regard to the tushy...

[Nadme]

It's still a man's world; any technological advance will always benefit men first. Meanwhile women can keep scrubbing dishes and loading the washing machine...

[Moose]

*snorts* You fight the power, Nadme. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to cycle the laundry now.

[PraedSt]

It's still a man's world; any technological advance will always benefit men first. Meanwhile women can keep scrubbing dishes and loading the washing machine...
I beg to differ :D

Washing machine (which you mention)
Dishwasher
Hoover
Rhoomba
Iron
Toaster
Kettle
TV
Phone

Any more lads? :)

[Nadme]

Why the shocked reaction, Moose? I live 50 miles from a 3rd world nation where women are treated like brainless automatons. That's probably 80% of the world as we know it. All no-brainer drudge repetitive work is "women's work" to these people. Robots.

Most of the world doesn't need house-cleaning robots...if you get my drift.

That's reality and I didn't create that reality. :hand: Reality can be offensive.

[PraedSt]

I live 50 miles from a 3rd world nation where women are treated like brainless automatons.Try telling the women in my family that. And please drop this condescending '3rd world stuff'. The exact same social structure was prevalent in the 1st world not more than 100 years ago. That is not enough time for me to excuse your airs.


All no-brainer drudge repetitive work is "women's work" to these people.You're correct about hard repetitive work. But why are you conveniently forgetting the man's part in this? Not like he's sleeping on his backside is he? In the places you mention it's the man's responsibility, and his alone, to keep everyone fed. And when this system of labour division was in full vogue- a woman's work was indeed 'hard and repetitive', but the man's work was 'hard and physical'. Could you have done that as well?


Robots.Er..no.


Most of the world doesn't need house-cleaning robots...if you get my drift.I get your drift. And I disagree. And so do you if the rest of your post is to make any sense.


That's reality and I didn't create that reality. :hand: Reality can be offensive.Offensive? To who exactly? To you? To women? To 3rd world women? What I find offensive is your implication that women in the third world are no better than slaves. Some of these are my family. You insult them and you insult me. :mad:

[Ara Pacis]

Nonsense. You post links and state your case- Nice... But you're misstating it.What am I misstating, my case, someone else's case or something else entirely? What part of my post was nonsense?


Sure a ROOMBA alone is not going to cause obesity.
But factor in ALL the little luxuries of a technologically cushy society.
What is it that we do?
We sit around watching American Idol.
Then we go to the GYM and plop our fat butts on the treadmill for thirty minutes.
Then, after all that strenuous work, we get all hungry and hit the Jack in the Box Drive Thru.

It's a lifestyle.

We CAN. So we DO.My post referenced the OP and robotic slavery and that is its context. If you want to look at the socio-cultural economics of a technologically advanced lifestyle in toto, then we will see that robotic slavery as a domestic labor saving technology is a small part of the obesity issue, which was the point of my post (and upon which we seem to agree). Wherein is the disagreement?


Your links don't answer to the basic question. Nor do your claims.

What question? I quoted your entire post and there was no question in your statements. What do you believe to be the basic question?

[Moose]

Why the shocked reaction, Moose?

Because I'm looking at a house full of technology, well more than half of it designed to make chores (aka "women's work" in a medieval mindset) easier.

I could also flip on the TV (or I could if I cared to have cable hooked up) and catalog how much ad time is aimed at women vs how much aimed at men. Now, there's an inherent sexism there, which rightly needs correcting in the long term, but it's not one that says technology benefits men first.

The third world will have to grow up at its own pace, Nadme.

[Ara Pacis]

This is a little confusing. You seem to be saying:

1. Sugar is fattening.
2. Exercise won't work as well unless you eat properly.
3. People selling stuff tend to lie and exaggerate.

Now:

4. All of this seems common sense to me.
5. And you also seem to be aware of them.
6. So I presume you think others know, or should know.

Yet:

7. You appear to blame sellers for making people fat.

What am I missing here? :confused:

#2 is in reference to the linked abstract. Intensive exercise can reduce weight, but the addition of diet modification to an exercise regimen is more important from a weight loss point of view and this, when taken in context of the OP for a domestic labor savings device, would seem to suggest that employing a robotic housekeeper doesn't make people fat.

#5 I am aware of some of them. I am not a dietician, doctor or chemist, so there may be cases of which I am unaware.
#6 I don't assume others know, especially in light of...
#7 Food advertising and propaganda that attempt to diminish the dietary impact of their products through diversion, misinformation, and outright denial.

[Van Rijn]

I think the desire for robotic domestic servants is slightly disturbing. People want things to get done but are too damn lazy to do anything themselves. Slavery isn't socially acceptable any more and servants costs money (so essentially you still have to do some work to get housework done, you just get to choose what). That leaves creating acceptable slaves.


Weird argument. Mechanization is probably the key reason slavery and onerous cultural habits have been fading away.

[Ara Pacis]

Weird argument. Mechanization is probably the key reason slavery and onerous cultural habits have been fading away.

Applauds!

[PraedSt]

#2 is in reference to the linked abstract. Intensive exercise can reduce weight, but the addition of diet modification to an exercise regimen is more important from a weight loss point of view and this, when taken in context of the OP for a domestic labor savings device, would seem to suggest that employing a robotic housekeeper doesn't make people fat.

#5 I am aware of some of them. I am not a dietician, doctor or chemist, so there may be cases of which I am unaware.
#6 I don't assume others know, especially in light of...
#7 Food advertising and propaganda that attempt to diminish the dietary impact of their products through diversion, misinformation, and outright denial.
No Ara Pacis. I've read your posts around the board. You're invariably logical, but you're not being logical here.

1. Sugar is fattening.
2. Exercise won't work as well unless you eat properly.
3. People selling stuff tend to lie and exaggerate.

The above is common sense. The vast majority know this, just as much as they know things like 'you should never head-butt a camel'. You even admit it here:
"#5 I am aware of some of them. I am not a dietician, doctor or chemist, so there may be cases of which I am unaware."

Yet:
"#6 I don't assume others know, especially in light of...
#7 Food advertising and propaganda that attempt to diminish the dietary impact of their products through diversion, misinformation, and outright denial."

Of course companies should not lie, misinform and deny, but, considering that most people know that they do, what new information will more laws provide? (Or whatever your solution is)
Aren't you simply shifting blame? Absolving people of taking responsibility for their own body?

[Moose]

Of course companies should not lie, misinform and deny, but, considering that most people know that they do, what new information will more laws provide?

(emphasis mine)

Even if this were true (something I'm unwilling to take for granted, if you happen to have a cite or two to support that assertion, I'd appreciate it), the 'minority' of people that don't fully realize (either literally or functionally) still deserve some degree of protection from deliberate misinformation.

Deliberate misinformation from a profession of people (I want to say 'predators') who go through a great deal of time and effort to research our psychological blind spots; not for the public good, but so that they can make their own preferred misinformation stick within the public consciousness.

There's a term that had brief currency around BAUT the year of the merge. "Knowledge vandalism". It was originally used to describe the actions of Apollo hoax believers, history deniers (such as holocaust deniers), and the like. As I become more and more jaded, I've been increasingly of the opinion that marketers belong in that group as well.

It's not always about adding new information, PraedSt. Sometimes it's about protecting what information there is. "We" already know just about everything we need to about nutrition. The problem is that the knowledge is buried under an absolute mountain of wild guesses, errors, wishful thinking, half-truths, distortions, and outright lies.

The reason we _do_ science in the first place is that we (as a species) are demonstrably bad at sifting knowledge from fallacy without assistance.

[PraedSt]

Even if this were true (something I'm unwilling to take for granted, if you happen to have a cite or two to support that assertion, I'd appreciate it)....Gaaah! I hate arguing with friends. :)

There's only one place these arguments end up, so we might as well take it there and end this.

Who is responsible for making sure you a) acquire knowledge? and b) act upon it? With words such as relevant, correct, sufficient, etc thrown in.

How much of that responsibility falls upon your shoulders? Your family's? Your country's?

I would place more facts on the left of that line, than I would the right. Certainly facts such as 'drinking lots of sugary drinks is bad for you', 'keeping fit is a good idea' and 'beware of people selling things'. This was the level of information we were discussing. Not the level of Apollo.

To me, it is not only common sense, but mine, and my parent's responsibility before me, to acquire this level of information. It is not my country's job to point it out to me- she has enough to be going on with.

Now you will have a different distribution. Ara Pacis does, and so does everyone else. So let's leave it at that,shall we? :)

[Neverfly]

Gaaah! I hate arguing with friends. :)
Probably doesn't help much that it's over something so goofy huh?



Who is responsible for making sure you a) acquire knowledge? and b) act upon it? With words such as relevant, correct, sufficient, etc thrown in.

How much of that responsibility falls upon your shoulders? Your family's? Your country's?


PraedSt, just accept it.

Some people out there honestly believe that we're all stupid and that the government is supposed to nanny us, hold our hands and spoon feed sus. Tellin' us what to eat now?

Mannn... I'm gonna go off on somebody here...:doh:

MOOSE!

We are not Stupid!

Got that?

We are Spoiled
Fat
and LAZY
not stupid.

We KNOW Twinkies and McD's french fries ain't exactly Health Food.
WE are Not as stupid as you seem to think.
<shakes head and wonders out> Unbelievable!:rolleyes:

[Whirlpool]

All no-brainer drudge repetitive work is "women's work" to these people

Excuse me , Women's works are NOT No-brainer ! :mad:

If you think that washing the dishes and doing the laundry using our hands or cleaning the house doesn't need some thinking ?

Before Dishwashing Machines ,Washing Machines, Vaccum Cleaners , etc were invented , we are doing all of these with LOVE and CARE.

Ask your GrandMa about it .

And with this women's work that you call No- Brainer , you actually benefited from it and even ease your life from the day you are born .

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/45.gif

[galacsi]

Gaaah! I hate arguing with friends. :)

There's only one place these arguments end up, so we might as well take it there and end this.

Who is responsible for making sure you a) acquire knowledge? and b) act upon it? With words such as relevant, correct, sufficient, etc thrown in.

How much of that responsibility falls upon your shoulders? Your family's? Your country's?

I would place more facts on the left of that line, than I would the right. Certainly facts such as 'drinking lots of sugary drinks is bad for you', 'keeping fit is a good idea' and 'beware of people selling things'. This was the level of information we were discussing. Not the level of Apollo.

To me, it is not only common sense, but mine, and my parent's responsibility before me, to acquire this level of information. It is not my country's job to point it out to me- she has enough to be going on with.

Now you will have a different distribution. Ara Pacis does, and so does everyone else. So let's leave it at that,shall we? :)

So spoke Stahkanovstra !! About 40 posts a day !! Opinion on everything !! Wow ! Wow !! :D

[Ara Pacis]

No Ara Pacis. I've read your posts around the board. You're invariably logical, but you're not being logical here.

1. Sugar is fattening.
2. Exercise won't work as well unless you eat properly.
3. People selling stuff tend to lie and exaggerate.

The above is common sense. The vast majority know this, just as much as they know things like 'you should never head-butt a camel'. You even admit it here:
"#5 I am aware of some of them. I am not a dietician, doctor or chemist, so there may be cases of which I am unaware."

Yet:
"#6 I don't assume others know, especially in light of...
#7 Food advertising and propaganda that attempt to diminish the dietary impact of their products through diversion, misinformation, and outright denial."

Of course companies should not lie, misinform and deny, but, considering that most people know that they do, what new information will more laws provide? (Or whatever your solution is)
Aren't you simply shifting blame? Absolving people of taking responsibility for their own body?

Knowing that companies can lie is different from knowing what and how they lie and what relation it bears to reality. The traditional prescription of "caveat emptor" is harder to follow as issues become more complex, the obfuscation becomes more sophisticated, and instinctive senses that have evolved over a million years become liabilities in discerning the truth. At some point it it is not only plausible, but necessary to shift blame to the experts when it is no longer plausible for an everyman to arise to the level of competence necessary to make correct determinations, whether it is in the discipline of credit default swaps and mortgages, or mass-produced and processed foods. (BTW, I am not here advocating any particular solution; I'm just making observations.)

For example, part of the controvery over High Fructose Corn Syrup is the claim that HFCS affects leptin and the ability to feel satiated, leading to more caloric intake. There is a competing study, but it was funded by the Corn Refiner's Association and/or the American Beverage Institute. Who do you believe? Can you perform the experiments of molecular biology necessary to figure it out for yourself or must you decide to trust what someone else tells you?

For example, we might assume that by following the Food Pyramid food servings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serving_size) we would be able to judge how much of the prepared foods we purchase can be eaten for a healthy meal, right? Not really. The serving sizes listed on the Nutritional Data chart of a product package is not directly related to the healthy serving size, but are instead based on commonly consumed amounts or reference amounts. Moreover, the rules allow a manufacturer to round up or down significantly for packaging convenience. For instance, "Certain rules apply to food products that are packaged and sold individually. If such an individual package is less than 200 percent of the applicable reference amount, the item qualifies as one serving. Thus, a 360-mL (12-fluid-ounce) can of soda is one serving, since the reference amount for carbonated beverages is 240 mL (8 ounces)." FDA link (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-lab18.html) In other words, One may think they've had only one serving, when they have actually had 1.5 in the case of soda, which may or may not have any relation to healthy food intake guidelines.

There are other potential alterations in perception employed by food marketers and packagers, such as: container size, shape and volume; the psychological influence of packaging colors on appetite and purchasing; the use of non-regulated terminology to imply healthiness; the use of flavors or scents to signal the intake of foods not in presence. Howeover, these tactics may or may not be culpable in the specific issue of obesity, because their use can be ambiguous and result in underconsumption as well as overconsumption.

Another issue is the use of regulated terminology, such as Low Fat, Fat Free, light, etc that are now defined by the FDA. There are some alleged cases where light implied low fat but was actually a lie justified by having a light color or a light texture ("alleged" in the sense that they are listed as references without citation by the FDA in this document (http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/foodlabel/lite.html)). This can still be misleading because low in fat does not necessarily mean low in calories. Also, we run into the ambiguous serving size problem. Then there is the potentially misleading use of a term like "reduced calories" to indicate a lower calorie version of a reference food; however, the reduced version may still be unhealthily high in calories depending on how extraordinarily high in calories the reference food is. Adding to the confusion is the use of such terms on products to which it is not meant to be applied: such as applesauce that says "a fat free food", which can still lead to confusion and questions about why there is such a concern that applesauce might not be fat free (despite the FDA's intent to reduce confusion in the use of unrelated terms as applied to naturally-free type foods).

When we consider the concepts of value and waste, consumers may feel it is best to eat all of a portion container, especially if it is listed as 1 serving, whether or not that serving is healthful (consider the soda can example). Over time, the misperceived consumption can become a not insignificant margin of overconsumption, despite a consumer's best intentions. Add to this a wide variation in serving size of similar products, such as ice cream, where common varieties (usually low cost and full of artificial ingredients) may contain a lot of "over-run" (air mixed in, up to 100%, which is 50% by volume), whereas "premium" types of ice cream are limited to lesser amounts of "over-run" by law, and thus contain a higher calorie density but yet may be perceived as more healthy due to the common practice of limiting natural ingredient recipies to the "premium" varieties. Consider that a person accustomed to serving the lower energy density product, might serve the same volumetric portion of the higher energy density version without realization because the profit motive of manufacturers may alter content but not expectation.

Confused yet? Consider how smart we all are, then realize that the average person isn't as smart as us, then realize that half of them are stupider than that (to paraphrase George Carlin). Now, if we only had computer/robotic domestic servants that could prepare and serve healthy, properly proportioned meals, we might lessen the obesity epidemic. :-)

[Neverfly]

Now, if we only had computer/robotic domestic servants that could prepare and serve healthy, properly proportioned meals, we might lessen the obesity epidemic. :-)

Yes, the stupid cattle require micro-management.

[geonuc]

:eek:

I liked this thread better when we were talking about Roombas chasing cat tails.

[Neverfly]

:eek:

I liked this thread better when we were talking about Roombas chasing cat tails.
Good point.

Time for another break.

[geonuc]

Note that my previous remark was in reaction to the tone the thread has taken in general, not to any particular person.

[Moose]

Who is responsible for making sure you a) acquire knowledge? and b) act upon it? With words such as relevant, correct, sufficient, etc thrown in.

PraedSt, you are. Or your legal guardian in the case of children. I've never suggested otherwise.

What I'm suggesting is that it's in the public good, and part of the "common defense" responsibility of government to prevent corporations from forming their business models around acts of deliberate deception (particularly when that deception endangers the public.) It's good in exactly the same way that preventing fraud is in the public good.

Enron, for example, cooked its books pretty severely to cover up it's manipulation of California's energy, deliberately acting to cause the rolling blackouts.

There was a time, not so long ago, where tobacco companies would release "studies" to suggest nicotine was non-addictive and tobacco smoke itself was non-carcinogenic.

... Melamine to fake gluten counts ...

Homeopathy. The entire supplement industry. This latest fake-mortgage crisis.

The examples are endemic.

It's not wrong to require companies to compete on their own merits rather than the ones they make up whole-cloth.

And Nev, I've never suggested (nor do I believe) that people are stupid, nor that people require micromanagement. I'd ask that you please take a deep breath and rev it back a few notches.

What I said was that the human mind is good at pattern matching. So good that this comes with a dangerous price: we see patterns where there exist none. So even with the best of intentions, we... make... mistakes. Even the smartest and best scientists will tend to make these mistakes if left alone.

This is demonstrable. Pick up any first year psychology text if you want chapter and verse about learning and pattern matching. Mine is less than ten feet away.

The single biggest danger lies in believing you're immune from these blind spots. I'm not. You're not. But (for many reasons) people tend to believe they are immune.

Jenny McCarthy is a good, recent example of this. Vaccinations are given right about the same time that autism symptoms start to become detectable in children. She concluded ("post hoc, ergo propter hoc") that vaccinations cause autism, and promotes it relentlessly.

Again, it's hard to turn around without running into dozens of examples of well meaning, generally knowledgeable people who've jumped to the wrong conclusions based on incorrect... or outright fraudulent "facts".

How many times this month have you heard someone insist that "I know what I saw"? Many people hear certainty in those words. What I hear is the distinct sound of thin ice beginning to crack.

[Nadme]

Whirlpool, take a deep breath...

...I didn't say all "women's work" was a no-brainer. Mine required business college, hard work and application. But it also doesn't require a Ph.D. to scrub dishes and make beds and dust furniture, right?

Fact is, the majority of the world is still backwards when it comes to gender equality. Anyone who denies this obviously isn't paying attention. Women are "honor killed" in some nations due to real or perceived "offenses to the family" (usually involves her seeking more independence or she's dating a young man without father's approval). Young girls in Afghanistan on their way to school are being assaulted by acid being thrown in their eyes (and faces) to blind them. 120 years ago you and I wouldn't have been able to vote in elections. 500 years ago we likely wouldn't be able to read nor write, because girls weren't allowed an education.

Sure, the situation here in the West is good. There is an unparalleled level of gender equality than ever before. :)

But there are still troubling symptoms: One man here suddenly unfriended me. This year I've lost two male "friends" for just once in years stating an opinion they didn't like; Boom! That's it...you ticked me off and we're not friends anymore!

I dunno...am I entitled to my opinion and once in a blue moon pointing out various situations or not? Seems there might be an old-fashioned attitude in those 3 mentioned above.

Fact is, if domestic/housecleaning robots were available to my father-in-law and paternal grandfather "back in the day" the response would have been (I'd bet an entire paycheck to a penny) "Why? I've got a wife to do all that." And that'd still the response, I'd bet, of 80% of the world as we still know it -- if news headlines and media stories are any indication.

No apologies from me on this. I didn't start the fire; it was always burning since the world's been turning apparently...

And that's my last on this. Everything's wonderful and rosy in the world apparently (I'll get it eventually -- just give me some time please). :rolleyes:

[chrissy]

Meanwhile back on topic, I like a lot of *covenience* appliances, they help me get a lot more of my daily household tasks done in one go, I switch on my washing machine and while the laundrey is getting done, I can deal with the hoovering (vacuuming) they are here to make peoples lives a lot easier and also makes it possible for us to go to work for a lot longer, household chores wouldn't be completed if this wasn't the case.
As for making us more lazy, I don't think so, I still wash up in the sink, I still sweep and mop my kitchen floor, use a bit of elbow grease to dust all my furniture, I don't want a damn robot getting in my way when I am trying to relax on an evening. :( The kids do that enough for me.

Yes Nadme, I agree there are many men out there today who still think a womans place is in the home, making babies and doing all the house work and having a meal on the table for them when they come in. They would get a shock if the roles were reversed. :D

As for OBESITY I am sure this thread has nothing to do with that, it is more of a point of being lazy and getting "Gadgets and Robots" to do more work!

[Neverfly]

But there are still troubling symptoms: One man here suddenly unfriended me. This year I've lost two male "friends" for just once in years stating an opinion they didn't like; Boom! That's it...you ticked me off and we're not friends anymore!

HUH?
What does this have to even do with anything?
Sounds like sexism on your part.

[Moose]

Sounds like sexism on your part.

Not really called for, Nev. Also a fairly big assumption.

[Neverfly]

Not really called for, Nev. Also a fairly big assumption.
oh


ok

How foolish of me. Whatever.

Moose, I disagree with you so I'm going to ACT LIKE A MAN! and "Unfriend" you.
MEN! <snort>

:rolleyes:

[closetgeek]

[QUOTE=Moose;1375782]Because I'm looking at a house full of technology, well more than half of it designed to make chores (aka "women's work" in a medieval mindset) easier.

Moose gets the awesome guy award for wording it like that :clap:


I could also flip on the TV (or I could if I cared to have cable hooked up) and catalog how much ad time is aimed at women vs how much aimed at men. Now, there's an inherent sexism there, which rightly needs correcting in the long term, but it's not one that says technology benefits men first.

Sad to say but the ad time dedicated to women is mainly because it is selected due to it's audience, not because there is more out there for women. It is also based on the channel you are watching. I don't mean to sound sexist but it is still a matter of there are more women at home, during the day, then men(but the at home dad thing seems to be increasing). Yet, commercials back in the day, were aimed at men, buying stuff for their wives, so their wives have more time to serve them better. If you were to watch a typically geared towards men channel, like FX, or a program that men are more likely to watch; ie sports (and I am not saying women don't like sports) or Cops, you are going to see far more ads directed at men; tools, electric razors, men's magazines, truck shows, etc. The amount of ads towards a specific gender has nothing to do with availability of convenience, rather who's actually watching.


One man here suddenly unfriended me. This year I've lost two male "friends" for just once in years stating an opinion they didn't like; Boom! That's it...you ticked me off and we're not friends anymore!

Nadme, it's possible that your gender had nothing to do with his decision to unfriend you, unless he made it clear, othewise.

[Moose]

The amount of ads towards a specific gender has nothing to do with availability of convenience, rather who's actually watching.

Yeah, I'd agree with that, to an extent. But I still do not, and cannot agree that technology mostly benefits men. Lacking research to hand, I have to go with my experience on this one. Technology, the non-cynical kind anyway, ("try our new shampoo with extract of leprechaun sweat, all natural, for increased body" whatever that means), addresses the need. Not the gender. I simply have too much chore-related technology to hand to agree with the proposition that most technology explicitly benefits men to the exclusion of women.

Nadme, I do agree, however, that this technology is often placed out of reach of women in much of the world. Sometimes it's too expensive for anyone to get a hold of, sometimes it's not sufficiently available, and far too often it's done maliciously.

This isn't, however, a problem with the technology itself (which as I've said above, tends to be gender agnostic), those who develop it, nor universally a male offense. It's unfortunate, but any major cultural problem will/must evolve slowly, over generations, and one can only force the issue so far without setting it back another generation or two.

They're not perfect, but things continue to get better for women over here. Your argument isn't wrong, but it is at least somewhat misplaced for this thread.

[Ara Pacis]

Well, I'll agree with Nev on the argument of Lifestyle. However, we should consider how that lifestyle developed. Back in the day, spring cleaning meant that: cleaning when spring came around. If I am to believe what I've been told, carpets and rugs were cleaned only a few times a year, when they were taken outside, hung up and swatted. With the invention of the electric vacuum cleaner, not only was it possible to clean more thoroughly and more often, but that became the expectation. As technological conveniences make it possible to do more work more efficiently, people tend to do more work more efficiently. This may not be good for our waistlines in many cases, but is has been better for health and standards of living in general. If we still got ice from the winter lakes up north for food preservation and rode horses or walked, and swatted rugs, we might be less obese, but we still might only live to 50 and die of typhus and have never made it to the moon.

As to the issue of women's work, the past might seem like drudgery for women, but it wasn't necessarily hunky-dory for men either. In the US in the last century or two, homemaker was a generalist specialty that often needed to engage in engineering and chemistry as the home-maker made lye soap, tended a garden, and preserving foods, while men banged on railroad spikes with hammers as a simpler laborer.

Once upon a time it made sense for half of the population to work at home since there weren't enough jobs for them to work outside the home and if they did, then there wasn't enough labor or fundingto perform the work necessary for the maintenance of a home. As labor saving devices became possible, it increased the efficiency of work both inside and outside the home. This allowed for greater surplus, and the ability to reduce housework to the level where a fulltime homemaker or servant was no longer necessary, right about at the same time that that displaced labor could be used for more general work through corporate employment.

Things have gotten better for both men and women through progress.

[Neverfly]

Well, I'll agree with Nev on the argument of Lifestyle. However, we should consider how that lifestyle developed. Back in the day, spring cleaning meant that: cleaning when spring came around. If I am to believe what I've been told, carpets and rugs were cleaned only a few times a year, when they were taken outside, hung up and swatted.

I don't think this bit is accurate.

Spring cleaning was the cleaning done once winter has passed. Since people hunkered down through the cold and harsh winter, they were less likely to go outside and beat rugs for example.
Spring Cleaning was just an event in which all the winter grime was to be dusted out once and for all.
But yes, people cleaned their houses every day, year round, just like we still do today.
Rugs were not cleaned only a few times a year, they were cleaned regularly.

During Spring Cleaning, furniture was carried outside, etc. It was not a one time cleaning- it was just a one time Thorough cleaning of everything.


Which is not something we do today very much. All those little corners and what not stay dirty year round and year after year.

[PraedSt]

So spoke Stahkanovstra !! About 40 posts a day !! Opinion on everything !! Wow ! Wow !! :D
I wish! Most of those posts are in F&G. :D


:eek:I liked this thread better when we were talking about Roombas chasing cat tails.Sorry. :o

[PraedSt]

Knowing that companies can lie....

PraedSt, you are. Or your legal guardian in the case of children. I've never suggested otherwise....
Not arguing! I like both of you, so any more might lead to disaster. I think you're wrong; you think I'm wrong. No big deal. Let's leave it at that. :)

[Neverfly]

Not arguing! I like both of you, so any more might lead to disaster. I think you're wrong; you think I'm wrong. No big deal. Let's leave it at that. :)
Funny.

How much I like a person has nothing to do with how hard I'll argue with them...:doh:

[Ara Pacis]

That part might not be accurate, it's just anecdote based on what I've been told by people with regards to rugs specifically. Cleaning in other ways would occur on other schedules.

Of course, with modern construction methods, there may be less cleaning necessary. Drywall sheds less dust than deteriorating plaster, housewrap reduces wind and vapor problems that contributed to dust and deterioration, modern windows let in less wind and vapor and let out less heat, thus requiring less heating. Modern heating systems preduce little or no soot and use cleaner fuels. Pesticides and tighter construction reduce the amount of infestations by pests that can generate filth and contribute to deterioration. Filtration on HVAC systems can reduce dust that would be spread around a house. Modern chemical cleansers can make quick work of filth that might have required a lot of manual scrubbing. Modern materials and coatings reduce the adherence of filth (sometimes through anti-biotic properties), reducing the scrubbing necessary to clean it. Many modern appliances are self-cleaning, drastically reducing the amount of labor needed for a thorough cleaning. Some modern materials not only save labor in the cleaning process but are able to clean or be cleaned to a level of sanitation not previously attainable, to the general health benefit of humanity.

[PraedSt]

Funny.

How much I like a person has nothing to do with how hard I'll argue with them...:doh:Yeah, I know. It's just this topic. Can get heated very easily. End up saying things that I may not mean, or regret afterwards. Now if they want to argue UFOs... :D

[Neverfly]

That part might not be accurate, it's just anecdote based on what I've been told by people with regards to rugs specifically. Cleaning in other ways would occur on other schedules.
Yes, but you based an argument on it that stated that technology and advancement has increased our efficiency and cleanliness.
Not necessarily the case though.

Side note- I agreed with the rest of your post rather emphatically, though i did not comment on it because it would open a whole 'nother can o' worms and there's enough on the plate as it is.


Of course, with modern construction methods, there may be less cleaning necessary. Drywall sheds less dust than deteriorating plaster, housewrap reduces wind and vapor problems that contributed to dust and deterioration, modern windows let in less wind and vapor and let out less heat, thus requiring less heating. Modern heating systems preduce little or no soot and use cleaner fuels. Pesticides and tighter construction reduce the amount of infestations by pests that can generate filth and contribute to deterioration. Filtration on HVAC systems can reduce dust that would be spread around a house. Modern chemical cleansers can make quick work of filth that might have required a lot of manual scrubbing. Modern materials and coatings reduce the adherence of filth (sometimes through anti-biotic properties), reducing the scrubbing necessary to clean it. Many modern appliances are self-cleaning, drastically reducing the amount of labor needed for a thorough cleaning. Some modern materials not only save labor in the cleaning process but are able to clean or be cleaned to a level of sanitation not previously attainable, to the general health benefit of humanity.
All completely true.

I did not read the initial post to this tangent as luddite.

The advancements are a good thing.

But intellect is also required. Plenty of people stay healthy and eat right and do whatever in spite of the ease of technology.
That's their personal choice.
Others choose not to. And that's ok- as far as I am concerned. I do not think they should be made to. I don't think they are blind fools who were deceived by Twinkie manufacturers either.

But technology is enabling.

So if someone is lazy, technology enables them to be.

If someone is prone to put on weight, technology enables that.

I don't think people should be forced to go to the gym or to eat right.

But if someone says that he thinks a Roomba is a tool for the lazy, I cannot say that he is wrong or should be hounded for thinking that way either.
Because a Roomba IS a tool for the lazy!
That's exactly what it is. Why have delusions about it?

So if I'm hammering a nail into a piece of wood, I could bang on it with a rock or...
I could hammer it in with a tool that is weighted and balanced for the job.
Or..
I could use compressed air and a nail gun.
If I use a nail gun- am I lazy?
I say no. Because in using the nail gun, I can do more work in a productive period of time. I'm still working.

But if I am using a Roomba-
ok
well...
I'm NOT using a Roomba. It is using itself and I'm sittin' on the couch huh?

See the difference?

[Neverfly]

Let me try this again, but a bit more succinctly.

Tools that enable me to work more efficiently or productively are good.

But tools that enable me to sit on my butt and do nothing.. well.. I just have a hard time respecting that.

Now, my butt likes down time too.
My hands enjoy holding video game controllers.

I would much rather be holding a video game controller than a sledge hammer (Although I do feel much better when I am working and getting things done than I do when I'm being a lazy butt).

I had a customer a while back that had a broken pipe under the concrete foundation.
I made a quick judgment call and, rather than take the time and drive down to tool rental and spend the money on renting a hammer drill...
I took a chisel and two sledge hammers out of my truck and hammer and chiseled a hole through a 6- 8 inch slab of concrete. Made the hole large enough I could fit my body in and I repaired the pipe.
The customer thought I was nuts.
But to me, it was MORE productive to work a little harder than it was to spend the time and money to ease the burden. Plus, I'm good with a hammer and the hole was cut to perfection enabling a lot easier filling in.

I also like the effect it has on my arms when I flex:p


Hypothetical situation:
I run off and tie the knot.

So there I am at home and sitting on the couch. My wife comes in pushing the vacuum cleaner.
Do I lift my feet as she passes by?
Or do I get up and start moving furniture around and helping her out?
I cannot abide sitting by and watching people work. It bugs me. I feel like a slug if I ever do that.
If I just lift my feet- then my wife is nothing more than a Roomba.
So I get up and move furniture around.

The next day, I head out and mow the lawn.
My wife sees me out there working. Does she just go back to her soap opera?
Or does she come out and bring me Iced Tea? Such a Small simple act can make such a big difference.
If she goes back to her soap opera, I am nothing more than a RoboMow (http://www.friendlyrobotics.com/). (check out the lazy bum on the porch in the picture. Advertising?)

Working together to be productive is healthy. Sitting around isn't.

Tools that enable productivity is a good thing.
Tools that enable fat butts in chairs is not always a good thing.



ETA: I failed in being succinct.
I will go flog myself now.

[Ara Pacis]

But technology is enabling.

So if someone is lazy, technology enables them to be.

If someone is prone to put on weight, technology enables that.

I agree with this. However, I think your statement about the nail gun and the Rhoomba are comparable. A nail gun is a labor saving device and so is a Rhoomba. A nail gun may make you more productive at a specific task (allowing you to perform more work in the same amount of time or allowing you to do the same total amount of work and quite sooner and then loaf on the couch) but a Rhoomba omits a task and thereby frees a person up to be more productive at any task to which that person may endeavor during that newly freed-up time. That may make the Rhoomba's value harder to quantify, but that also means that the labor savings may have a potentially greater impact. Sure, a Rhoomba may allow someone to be lazy and sit on the sofa for the amount of time necessary to vacuum a room, but that person could be at the gym exercising more intensively than housework might allow, or it might also allow an astronomer to stay at the lab an hour longer and spot that rogue comet that's on a collision course with Earth. But that's hyperbole and it might have been the fast-food lunch that allowed him to stay at work longer that fateful night. :-)

That being said, I don't have a Rhoomba. But that's because I don't have the money and because I think it fails my cost-benefit analysis.

[Neverfly]

I agree with this. However, I think your statement about the nail gun and the Rhoomba are comparable. A nail gun is a labor saving device and so is a Rhoomba. A nail gun may make you more productive at a specific task (allowing you to perform more work in the same amount of time or allowing you to do the same total amount of work and quite sooner and then loaf on the couch) but a Rhoomba omits a task and thereby frees a person up to be more productive at any task to which that person may endeavor during that newly freed-up time. That may make the Rhoomba's value harder to quantify, but that also means that the labor savings may have a potentially greater impact. Sure, a Rhoomba may allow someone to be lazy and sit on the sofa for the amount of time necessary to vacuum a room, but that person could be at the gym exercising more intensively than housework might allow, or it might also allow an astronomer to stay at the lab an hour longer and spot that rogue comet that's on a collision course with Earth. But that's hyperbole and it might have been the fast-food lunch that allowed him to stay at work longer that fateful night. :-)

That being said, I don't have a Rhoomba. But that's because I don't have the money and because I think it fails my cost-benefit analysis.

These really are good points.

A Roomba does not necessarily enable laziness- it enables freedom for other tasks too.

But the human being, leans heavily toward lazy.
So while one might say that a Roomba can free a person to do other work- and that claim will be valid,
it is equally valid that Damburger called it laziness enabling.

Which is the part where I jumped in because I agree with Damburger.
We get really lazy.
And we get fat too.
We do.
We can try to shift the burden of blame around all day long- but the blame- Ultimately can either fall on the individuals choices or physical make up.
The rest are just enabling factors that can swing in multiple directions readily.
Damburgers statements were as valid as Moose's or yours.

Moose's.

That's fun to say.


I saw a flock of Moose's.
They were eating grasses.

[Graybeard6]

Thanksgiving Day we were sitting around and I mentioned we were thinking of getting a Roomba. My wife and I are getting up in years and loosing a lot of strength and flexibility. It's really hard, for example, to vacuum under furniture, or move it. While discussing pros and cons (would it be better to have a maid come in a couple of times a week) the problem of animal attacks on the Roomba came up. We don't presently have a dog, but occasionally dogsit a Dachshund. Our son said he had read (or seen) a solution for that; one very firmly chastises the Roomba!

[Ara Pacis]

it is equally valid that Damburger called it laziness enabling.

I was primarily responding to his depiction of a labor saving device as slavery. I did post a response to another comment about obesity being contributed to by factors other than laziness. Somehow they all got combined into a single debate.

[Neverfly]

I was primarily responding to his depiction of a labor saving device as slavery.
Ok, well... Let's take a look at that.
In the old days, before we had the technology to build robots, we used slaves.
Currently, at todays development of robotics, it is ethical to use robots as slaves instead of other people.
They are not paid. They ARE slaves. However, they have no will or desires of their own. Using them does not infringe upon their rights or freedom.

But in the future, the development of more and more sophistication- up to the creation of AI or even the implication of AI, will blur the lines of whether or not a robot has designs of his own.
And there will be those people that argue that AI is still a manmade tool built to serve us and should remain as slaves.
Just as there will be those fighting for the robots freedom.

In our current age, it's ok to have robot slaves.
But that may change in the future.

The robots simply replace the task of slaves.
Damburgers depiction was still accurate even if not entirely applicable at this time.

[TheOncomingStorm]

by Neverfly
Why would someone want an automatic transmission?
I have asked many people that. Their answer is always the same.
"I get tired of shifting gears all the time."

Burning out the clutch can be an extra thousand dollar expense.

[Neverfly]

Burning out the clutch can be an extra thousand dollar expense.
So can burning up an automatic.

Don't burn them up.
See? Easy eh?

[TheOncomingStorm]

So can burning up an automatic.

Don't burn them up.
See? Easy eh?
Some people burn strandard a lot easier.
(eh, are you wearing a ten gallon hat.)

A lot of machines were deveolped to help with productivity. Instead of taking a whole day washing and drying a load of laundry you just load the machine and chabe the machines to dry the clothes whil you can being something else. Right now I typing and also listening to a sciam podcast at 5 in the morning.

Once and while using hammer and chisels instead of jackhammer my be fine once . While but if you had to break a larger chunk of concrete you probably go and rent one.

[Neverfly]

Some people burn strandard a lot easier.
Then they need to learn how to operate their equipment properly.


(eh, are you wearing a ten gallon hat.)
No.


Once and while using hammer and chisels instead of jackhammer my be fine once . While but if you had to break a larger chunk of concrete you probably go and rent one.

You would be surprised how little I rent heavy tools
About the only machinary I WILL rent is digging equipment.
Love them backhoes!
I HATE digging in Texas soil.

[Ara Pacis]

Ok, well... Let's take a look at that.
In the old days, before we had the technology to build robots, we used slaves.
Currently, at todays development of robotics, it is ethical to use robots as slaves instead of other people.
They are not paid. They ARE slaves. However, they have no will or desires of their own. Using them does not infringe upon their rights or freedom.

But in the future, the development of more and more sophistication- up to the creation of AI or even the implication of AI, will blur the lines of whether or not a robot has designs of his own.
And there will be those people that argue that AI is still a manmade tool built to serve us and should remain as slaves.
Just as there will be those fighting for the robots freedom.

In our current age, it's ok to have robot slaves.
But that may change in the future.

The robots simply replace the task of slaves.
Damburgers depiction was still accurate even if not entirely applicable at this time.

Which is why I am disagreeing in the present. We might revisit the issue when tools have AIs, but tools as slaves sans AI is a non-starter.

[matthewota]

At least a robot servant will not talk back to you or give you sass like a disgruntled housewife...

It will be a long time before you see a robot wielding a iron frying pan or rolling pin in anger, since they will not have emotions.

[Whirlpool]

IF we have Robots who does ALL , we would be like those in the movie Wall-E where every human is obese that can't walk, feed , bath , cook and clean the house .

:doh:

[closetgeek]

At least a robot servant will not talk back to you or give you sass like a disgruntled housewife...

Matthewota, was that a joke or did we just jump backwards a few centuries?


Tools that enable me to work more efficiently or productively are good.

But tools that enable me to sit on my butt and do nothing.. well.. I just have a hard time respecting that.

Nev I guess it just comes down to what the individual chooses to do with that freed up time. You can hammer more nails with a gun and build the house faster or you can call it a day when you get to the amount of nails you would have done with a rock. I could use the roomba and play on the computer or I can use the roomba and get to scrubbing the shower floor.


So there I am at home and sitting on the couch. My wife comes in pushing the vacuum cleaner.
Do I lift my feet as she passes by?

I thought that was a man's way of helping around the house.


Or does she come out and bring me Iced Tea

Or she could grab the weedwacker and get that done while you are mowing. Sorry but that seems a bit unfair, you move furniture and all she has to do is bring some iced tea?
There has to be some kind of connection between the work we no longer have to do and the overall fitness of people in industrialized nations. It may not be a direct link to labor and health, I am sure the availability of instant dinners and fast food play a big part of it, but people did have to work harder to survive.

[Neverfly]

Or she could grab the weedwacker and get that done while you are mowing. Sorry but that seems a bit unfair, you move furniture and all she has to do is bring some iced tea?
There has to be some kind of connection between the work we no longer have to do and the overall fitness of people in industrialized nations. It may not be a direct link to labor and health, I am sure the availability of instant dinners and fast food play a big part of it, but people did have to work harder to survive.

Y'all talk big, but given a choice, most women end up preferring to do the tasks they complained about in the first place than do a mans work.

Do men like weeding gardens and planting pretty flowers?
Not really. So when yall do it, we don't get our underwear in a knot and cry about how it's so unfair and we can plant pretty flowers just as well as a woman can.

It's very annoying how women cry foul loudly over the fact men and women have different tasks- yet when given a choice, they choose the feminine tasks anyway.

You wanna weed whack the lawn when I mow- shoot be my guest. I ain't gonna complain. Knock yourself out. I didn't ask it be done though.
It's my job.
But if you got somethin' to prove.... <Shrug>



ETA: By the way... How come it's ok for a woman to yell about men needing his wife to bring him something to drink, but when she's cooking and can't get a jar open, she shoves it in his hand and demands he open it?
I mean , they don't even ASK, they just "here, do it"
My housemate and I got into it on this topic once, and sure enough... after the discussion She couldn't get the lid off the food processor (it jammed) and she called me in and asked me to get the lid off of it... I said, "Anything a man can do a woman can do better."
Boy... if looks could kill...

Another time, she couldn't get a jar open. Just put it in my hand and said, "Do something with that"
So I placed it upside down in the refrigerator.
I followed the directive. I did something with it. Not what I wanted to do with it- but it was 'something' at least.

[PraedSt]

At least a robot servant will not talk back to you or give you sass like a disgruntled housewife...

Matthewota, was that a joke or did we just jump backwards a few centuries?
.


So there I am at home and sitting on the couch. My wife comes in pushing the vacuum cleaner.
Do I lift my feet as she passes by?

I thought that was a man's way of helping around the house.


Huh? I think I missed a few classes. :confused:

[Neverfly]

[contradictory quotes]
Huh? I think I missed a few classes. :confused:

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

Thanks Praed- that was BEAUTIFUL!

[closetgeek]

Y'all talk big, but given a choice, most women end up preferring to do the tasks they complained about in the first place than do a mans work.

Okay, first off, even when he was home, I preferred to do the yard work because it is something I actually enjoy. I am outside and it feels like a good workout, especially the edging...and I hate gardening which is why we have nothing but shrubs. Given a choice, I would much prefer riding through the yard, headphones on, and getting a little sun over sweeping and mopping but that is probably because the floor has to be cleaned way more then the yard has to be mowed.


It's very annoying how women cry foul

I wasn't crying foul, I was merely stating that it seemed a bit unbalanced in her favor that your help is moving furniture and her help was a glass of iced tea. I, personally, would feel overwhelmingly guilty, sitting in the air conditioning, acting helpless, while he was out there sweating his butt off.


she couldn't get a jar open

Alright, that part is just unfair. No doubt you are probably stronger than her. Don't hold it against her that on occassion, she may need help because I am sure there is a time when you have to go to her for something. However, just yesterday, I had to overcome that obstacle. My daughter brought me a jar and asked me to open it and I couldn't do it. I tried with my bare hands; nope, a towel; nope, hitting the rim; nope, banging it on the counter; nope, ran it under some hot water; bingo! Looks like I don't need a man after all :).


Originally Posted by PraedSt
[contradictory quotes]
Huh? I think I missed a few classes.

Lol