Current Events > New drones plant 100,000 trees a day for 20% of the cost of human labor

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/drones-plant-100000-trees-a-day

Capitalism wins again.

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.
---

the desire to undercut your lowest paid workers does drive innovation I guess
---

Just imagine how much paper we could save if you could convince business people that they don't need to print out every god damn thing.
---

Ranting Nord posted...

Just imagine how much paper we could save if you could convince business people that they don't need to print out every god damn thing.

i work in an office and only the super old people who haven't lrn2computer yet still print things out. the vast majority of us have laptops and share documents electronically in meetings or use projectors
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

yikes
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

It also created the means for you to bitch about it to people across the world

Blessed capitalism

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

Sounds like a responsible economic system to me.
---

Trump's America
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

Actually, capitalism doesn't require that we destroy the environment. That was just a consequence of things like overpopulation in certain areas, limited knowledge on the importance of replanting and maintaining forestry, etc.

The good news is that capitalism enables innovative solutions to complex and challenging problems!

CookieMarvin posted...

the desire to undercut your lowest paid workers does drive innovation I guess

Do you want to go back to a time when people picked cotton and vegetables by hand? Or back to the 1920s when washing clothing took 11.5 hours a week?

Ranting Nord posted...

Just imagine how much paper we could save if you could convince business people that they don't need to print out every god damn thing.

Yep. But a good way to counteract that is to have companies like these reforest the shit out of the planet. Billions of new trees per year.

Romes187 posted...

It also created the means for you to bitch about it to people across the world

but the internet was invented via government sponsored research programs ...
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Romes187 posted...

It also created the means for you to bitch about it to people across the world

but the internet was invented via government sponsored research programs ...

The first military net was. The internet we have today is a consequence of numerous commercial ventures that enabled access at the costs we have now.

By the way, slightly related: I do believe that the military budget and other government funds are great ways to drive innovation. >:)

FLUFFYGERM posted...

But a good way to counteract that is to have companies like these reforest the shit out of the planet. Billions of new trees per year.

who should fund the reforestation efforts, IYO?

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The first military net was.

right, that's where it was "created", which was my point, but thanks for backing me up homie
---

CookieMarvin posted...

the desire to undercut your lowest paid workers does drive innovation I guess

It's how those fat bastards at the top stay fat. If they had to share the cream with their workers, then they wouldn't be so fat.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Romes187 posted...

It also created the means for you to bitch about it to people across the world

but the internet was invented via government sponsored research programs ...

what bout your computer?
windows
apple?
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

It's not like people were cutting down trees for the sake of cackling and twirling their mustaches. They use the wood to build products that all of us buy and that we all want to pay lower prices for.
---

armandro posted...

what bout your computer?
windows
apple?

Al Gore bruh
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

But a good way to counteract that is to have companies like these reforest the shit out of the planet. Billions of new trees per year.

who should fund the reforestation efforts, IYO?

Not 100% sure, I'd have to think about that. That's a good question. But here's the beauty of capitalism - now we won't really need to worry about where the funding will come from since it's now 20% cheaper to plant 100,000 trees per day. As the technology improves it'll get even cheaper. So no matter where the funding comes from, we can be sure it won't cost much. >:)

The Admiral posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

Sounds like a responsible economic system to me.

creating massive problems then scrambling to fix them decades later isnt exactly efficient though
---

meanwhile:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth
---

Alucard188 posted...

CookieMarvin posted...

the desire to undercut your lowest paid workers does drive innovation I guess

It's how those fat bastards at the top stay fat. If they had to share the cream with their workers, then they wouldn't be so fat.

Huh? Do you realize the implications of what this nonsense leads to? It's like saying "those fucking fat bastards at the top are staying fat because they're now using machines to pick the crops" or "those fucking fat bastards at the top are staying fat because now they're selling machines that eliminated the 11.5 hours of hand-washing per week"

A drone that can plant 100,000 trees per day at 20% of the cost of human labor is only a good thing. Hand planting is expensive and slow. We need cheap and fast and effective.

CookieMarvin posted...

The Admiral posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

Sounds like a responsible economic system to me.

creating massive problems then scrambling to fix them decades later isnt exactly efficient though

Please see my response to Giant Aspirin in post #10.

Who actually plants trees
---

Romulox28 posted...

meanwhile:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth

capitalism will create earth 2.0 after we demolish this one

circle of life
---

Eventually the innovation driven by capitalism will make capitalism untenable and we'll be forced to have some sort of universal income or something similar. I mean with all the driving jobs being automated within a few decades and who knows what other industries will no longer need a human work force... There just won't be enough jobs to support the population. Idk what will happen after that point, but I can guarantee you it won't be a smooth and painless transition. Conservatives will still be shouting about bootstraps and calling the scientists and economists who calculated the massive disparity between the population and available jobs liars and liberal snowflake hacks. But hopefully by then innovation will also have made it easy and relatively cheap to support everyone in the country and hopefully we eventually settle down into acknowledging that not only is there just not enough work to go around, but that we really don't need a massive labor force like we do now and that it's actually a sign of how far we've progressed as a society or even as a species that we can pretty much ensure everyone has at least as much as they need to survive.
---

nicklebro posted...

Eventually the innovation driven by capitalism will make capitalism untenable and we'll be forced to have some sort of universal income or something similar. I mean with all the driving jobs being automated within a few decades and who knows what other industries will no longer need a human work force... There just won't be enough jobs to support the population. Idk what will happen after that point, but I can guarantee you it won't be a smooth and painless transition. Conservatives will still be shouting about bootstraps and calling the scientists and economists who calculated the massive disparity between the population and available jobs liars and liberal snowflake hacks. But hopefully by then innovation will also have made it easy and relatively cheap to support everyone in the country and hopefully we eventually settle down into acknowledging that not only is there just not enough work to go around, but that we really don't need a massive labor force like we do now and that it's actually a sign of how far we've progressed as a society or even as a species that we can pretty much ensure everyone has at least as much as they need to survive.

When that day comes, it makes sense to have a conversation about UBI or a different type of economic system entirely. However, that day is not happening in the lives of anyone reading this. Right now, there are more unfilled job openings than there have ever been in the history of mankind.
---

Romulox28 posted...

meanwhile:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth

Did you actually read your own link? It was a good read but it doesn't say what you think it says. Here's a good summary from the article:

It could be argued that Chinas dominance of the rare earth market is less about geology and far more about the countrys willingness to take an environmental hit that other nations shy away from.

Sounds like China's problem is trying to be dominant despite having only 30% of the deposits. They should prioritize a sustainable and clean mining / recycling process. I'd certainly agree that we as consumers need to be better about using and buying our gadgets responsibly but this is definitely not some scathing criticism of capitalism. If this is what you think capitalism is, you're arguing against a caricature.

This is a good example of what capitalism can do when there's market demand:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2128355/china-builds-worlds-biggest-air-purifier-and-it-seems-be-working

The Admiral posted...

However, that day is not happening in the lives of anyone reading this

i definitely agree we're far from that point, but i don't agree that it's as far away as you seem to think. a LOT changes in 50 years, man, and technology builds upon technology (it grows exponentially).
---

nicklebro posted...

Eventually the innovation driven by capitalism will make capitalism untenable and we'll be forced to have some sort of universal income or something similar. I mean with all the driving jobs being automated within a few decades and who knows what other industries will no longer need a human work force... There just won't be enough jobs to support the population. Idk what will happen after that point, but I can guarantee you it won't be a smooth and painless transition. Conservatives will still be shouting about bootstraps and calling the scientists and economists who calculated the massive disparity between the population and available jobs liars and liberal snowflake hacks. But hopefully by then innovation will also have made it easy and relatively cheap to support everyone in the country and hopefully we eventually settle down into acknowledging that not only is there just not enough work to go around, but that we really don't need a massive labor force like we do now and that it's actually a sign of how far we've progressed as a society or even as a species that we can pretty much ensure everyone has at least as much as they need to survive.

People in 1920 spent an average of 11.5 hours per week washing clothing. Then came along capitalists selling washing machines which eliminated that time investment for a modest sum. The machines could operate constantly and last a long time with only some maintenance. Those machines are better than ever.

That is an example of the trend. The trend being that as things get automated, they become more efficient and cheaper. So ultimately it will be a good thing for everyone, because the costs of goods and services will go down.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is a good example of what capitalism can do when there's market demand:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2128355/china-builds-worlds-biggest-air-purifier-and-it-seems-be-working

The tower has been built in Xian in Shaanxi province and is undergoing testing by researchers at the Institute of Earth Environment at the Chinese Academy of Sciences

it was funded by the Chinese government
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

CookieMarvin posted...

The Admiral posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

Sounds like a responsible economic system to me.

creating massive problems then scrambling to fix them decades later isnt exactly efficient though

Please see my response to Giant Aspirin in post #10.

it was a bad response
---

Cool beans

Giant_Aspirin posted...

The Admiral posted...

However, that day is not happening in the lives of anyone reading this

i definitely agree we're far from that point, but i don't agree that it's as far away as you seem to think. a LOT changes in 50 years, man, and technology builds upon technology (it grows exponentially).

I think you're both wrong - I expect automation is coming much sooner than people realize. Within a couple of years we'll have autonomous driving available to us.

https://www.wired.com/story/waymo-launches-self-driving-minivans-fiat-chrysler/

That will completely change how cabs, trucks, etc, operate.

Amazon just opened a new store that has no cashiers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/amazon-debut-store-checkout-downtown-seattle-52514447

You literally just walk in, pick up what you want, and walk out.

When I did desktop support, I had to fight hard AF to convince the company not to print out dozens of paper versions of the initial training guide.

They wanted to:
1. Have a ~30 page booklet handed out to each new employee
2. Booklet had to be inside of a binder

Some of the guidelines would change almost every week, so that would mean re-writing the related pages, printing those out, handing the new pages out to people, etc.

I ended up coming into work off the clock to build a wiki version of the training guide. Fully searchable, links to related items, etc. Took me about 20 hours that I never got paid for, but holy shit I'm glad I did it. They still use that wiki to this day, and I left that company back in late 2012.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is a good example of what capitalism can do when there's market demand:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2128355/china-builds-worlds-biggest-air-purifier-and-it-seems-be-working

The tower has been built in Xian in Shaanxi province and is undergoing testing by researchers at the Institute of Earth Environment at the Chinese Academy of Sciences

it was funded by the Chinese government

Yeh the experimental one was a prototype funded by a national Chinese institution. But the point is that capitalism could take that and run with it and make ones that are much better if people want it. Ultimately what would happen if they decide to make more is that they'd roll out funding for private entities to make them. Note also that the scientist in charge of the project has filed a patent application, so it seems obvious that they're planning on monetizing the idea.

CableZL posted...

When I did desktop support, I had to fight hard AF to convince the company not to print out dozens of paper versions of the initial training guide.

They wanted to:
1. Have a ~30 page booklet handed out to each new employee
2. Booklet had to be inside of a binder

Some of the guidelines would change almost every week, so that would mean re-writing the related pages, printing those out, handing the new pages out to people, etc.

I ended up coming into work off the clock to build a wiki version of the training guide. Fully searchable, links to related items, etc. Took me about 20 hours that I never got paid for, but holy shit I'm glad I did it. They still use that wiki to this day, and I left that company back in late 2012.

Damn, that's some serious initiative. Good work. You deserved a bonus for that.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is a good example of what capitalism can do when there's market demand:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2128355/china-builds-worlds-biggest-air-purifier-and-it-seems-be-working

The tower has been built in Xian in Shaanxi province and is undergoing testing by researchers at the Institute of Earth Environment at the Chinese Academy of Sciences

it was funded by the Chinese government

Yeh the experimental one was a prototype funded by a national Chinese institution. But the point is that capitalism could take that and run with it and make ones that are much better if people want it. Ultimately what would happen if they decide to make more is that they'd roll out funding for private entities to make them. Note also that the scientist in charge of the project has filed a patent application, so it seems obvious that they're planning on monetizing the idea.

.... and Capitalism also could forego the idea completely if it's not profitable enough. you can't give credit based on what could happen.

they would only get into that business if it was profitable, right? so how would it work, exactly, if private companies "owned" the air and is that something you really think is good for society?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is a good example of what capitalism can do when there's market demand:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2128355/china-builds-worlds-biggest-air-purifier-and-it-seems-be-working

The tower has been built in Xian in Shaanxi province and is undergoing testing by researchers at the Institute of Earth Environment at the Chinese Academy of Sciences

it was funded by the Chinese government

Yeh the experimental one was a prototype funded by a national Chinese institution. But the point is that capitalism could take that and run with it and make ones that are much better if people want it. Ultimately what would happen if they decide to make more is that they'd roll out funding for private entities to make them. Note also that the scientist in charge of the project has filed a patent application, so it seems obvious that they're planning on monetizing the idea.

im no anti-capitalist but you dont see this as a clear cut example of profits over people, a point where capitalism kind of fails?

china essentially wrecks their own environment in order to get ahead, because from a purely capitalistic standpoint there is no incentive for them not to, and when they find that it is killing their population (i read somewhere it's safer to smoke cigarettes than breathe in the air in Shanghai on a bad day, for example), they have to create these space age air purifiers. and from your post you're saying it looks like they might even monetize it, so your access to clean air is now based upon someone's ability to pay
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is a good example of what capitalism can do when there's market demand:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2128355/china-builds-worlds-biggest-air-purifier-and-it-seems-be-working

The tower has been built in Xian in Shaanxi province and is undergoing testing by researchers at the Institute of Earth Environment at the Chinese Academy of Sciences

it was funded by the Chinese government

Yeh the experimental one was a prototype funded by a national Chinese institution. But the point is that capitalism could take that and run with it and make ones that are much better if people want it. Ultimately what would happen if they decide to make more is that they'd roll out funding for private entities to make them. Note also that the scientist in charge of the project has filed a patent application, so it seems obvious that they're planning on monetizing the idea.

.... and Capitalism also could forego the idea completely if it's not profitable enough. you can't give credit based on what could happen.

they would only get into that business if it was profitable, right? so how would it work, exactly, if private companies "owned" the air and is that something you really think is good for society?

I mean you're literally posting in a topic about a company that is building drones that can plant 100,000 trees a day for a fraction of the cost while still remaining profitable. It's clear that enough innovation can squeeze efficiency and profitability out of anything. >:)

Maybe air purification at the city-level is a ripe new market waiting to be tapped by someone itching to make profit. >:)

I'm curious, the ones who are complaining about this how many trees have they planted?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Maybe air purification at the city-level is a ripe new market waiting to be tapped by someone itching to make profit. >:)

right .... but if a private company cleaned the air in a city, does that mean citizens of that city are required to pay the company whatever they say is a necessary fee to breathe clean air? either that happens or the city pays for it via taxes. how would that even work? you're literally advocating that the privatization of the air we breathe as a GOOD thing for society.
---

The Admiral posted...

When that day comes, it makes sense to have a conversation about UBI or a different type of economic system entirely. However, that day is not happening in the lives of anyone reading this. Right now, there are more unfilled job openings than there have ever been in the history of mankind.

I agree.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

People in 1920 spent an average of 11.5 hours per week washing clothing. Then came along capitalists selling washing machines which eliminated that time investment for a modest sum. The machines could operate constantly and last a long time with only some maintenance. Those machines are better than ever.

That is an example of the trend. The trend being that as things get automated, they become more efficient and cheaper. So ultimately it will be a good thing for everyone, because the costs of goods and services will go down.

Of course, this is what I meant by how we should be proud of ourselves to have reached a point where we don't really need to work all that much anymore.
---

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is a good example of what capitalism can do when there's market demand:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2128355/china-builds-worlds-biggest-air-purifier-and-it-seems-be-working

The tower has been built in Xian in Shaanxi province and is undergoing testing by researchers at the Institute of Earth Environment at the Chinese Academy of Sciences

it was funded by the Chinese government

Yeh the experimental one was a prototype funded by a national Chinese institution. But the point is that capitalism could take that and run with it and make ones that are much better if people want it. Ultimately what would happen if they decide to make more is that they'd roll out funding for private entities to make them. Note also that the scientist in charge of the project has filed a patent application, so it seems obvious that they're planning on monetizing the idea.

im no anti-capitalist but you dont see this as a clear cut example of profits over people, a point where capitalism kind of fails?

china essentially wrecks their own environment in order to get ahead, because from a purely capitalistic standpoint there is no incentive for them not to, and when they find that it is killing their population (i read somewhere it's safer to smoke cigarettes than breathe in the air in Shanghai on a bad day, for example), they have to create these space age air purifiers. and from your post you're saying it looks like they might even monetize it, so your access to clean air is now based upon someone's ability to pay

Access to machines that clean contaminated air is based on payment, because those machines have a cost of production associated with them. The machines don't just build themselves. At least not yet.

If China wants to be stupid about its long term sustainability, then that's on them. Companies that don't have a long-term vision don't survive. If the Chinese government itself is not concerned about a long-term vision, maybe that's a problem within the government itself rather than a problem with capitalism. Capitalists want to maintain profit over the long term, bruh. If your production cycle destroys your assets (IE your land, your environment, your supply chain) then you're a really bad businessman.

Jiggy101011 posted...

I'm curious, the ones who are complaining about this how many trees have they planted?

0 lmao

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Maybe air purification at the city-level is a ripe new market waiting to be tapped by someone itching to make profit. >:)

right .... but if a private company cleaned the air in a city, does that mean citizens of that city are required to pay the company whatever they say is a necessary fee to breathe clean air? either that happens or the city pays for it via taxes. how would that even work? you're literally advocating that the privatization of the air we breathe as a GOOD thing for society.

No, you're framing it in such a way as to make it seem like I'm advocating for privatization of the air we breathe. That's because you're being dishonest.

It's like me trying to say that you're advocating for a government to own the air that we breathe. All I'm saying is that producing the machines requires labor and materials. They can't be produced for free. If a nation destroyed its environment and wants to take steps to repair it, the nation should pay for those machines. It's particularly why China's cities are interested in the idea.

Ideally they'd use these machines and then repurpose them once the environment is clean and once they've retrofitted their production to no longer pollute or destroy the environment.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

The timber industry learned pretty quickly that it has to plant more trees, or it would cease to exist within a couple or three decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_rotation_age

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Access to machines that clean contaminated air is based on payment, because those machines have a cost of production associated with them. The machines don't just build themselves. At least not yet.

this is like some Disney-villian level of abhorrent greed
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Access to machines that clean contaminated air is based on payment, because those machines have a cost of production associated with them. The machines don't just build themselves. At least not yet.

this is like some Disney-villian level of abhorrent greed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANa9Oku-JM

Questionmarktarius posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

The timber industry learned pretty quickly that it has to plant more trees, or it would cease to exist within a couple or three decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_rotation_age

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but *insert Giant Aspirin's and Romulox's dishonest caricature about what capitalism is*

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That's because you're being dishonest.

then who will pay for those machines, Proud? someone has to, you said so yourself. either the government funds it through tax dollars and makes it available to everyone, or it's only given out to those who can afford it.
---