Elon Musk is a nice chap

[Zero999]

Then they left, and the local people started to revert to more traditional ways of using the land, which do not require the steady influx of fertilizer and chemicals, and should be a lot more sustainable.

The traditional ways of tribal population control are not pretty though. Like nature in general, quite horrific in fact. We need progress, not regress.

It takes a very long time for a population to go from tribal to civilised. There are no developed countries which were completely uncivilised 200 years ago. There are examples of rapid development and industrialisation such as in Japan and South Korea, but they've were civilised for a long time before then. Any countries which were tribal and became developed recently, only did so because the Europeans completely decimated the native population.

[coppice]

Then they left, and the local people started to revert to more traditional ways of using the land, which do not require the steady influx of fertilizer and chemicals, and should be a lot more sustainable.

The traditional ways of tribal population control are not pretty though. Like nature in general, quite horrific in fact. We need progress, not regress.

The traditional way of controlling populations was not understanding the need for hygiene, used over most of the world. The reason Beijing was the world's largest city for a long time, while places like London reached an equilibrium above which they could not grow, was mostly down the hygiene. The Chinese (and the Japanese, and a few others) didn't understand the biology of good hygiene, but they did practice good hygiene as a social norm.

[Zero999]

Then they left, and the local people started to revert to more traditional ways of using the land, which do not require the steady influx of fertilizer and chemicals, and should be a lot more sustainable.

The traditional ways of tribal population control are not pretty though. Like nature in general, quite horrific in fact. We need progress, not regress.

The traditional way of controlling populations was not understanding the need for hygiene, used over most of the world. The reason Beijing was the world's largest city for a long time, while places like London reached an equilibrium above which they could not grow, was mostly down the hygiene. The Chinese (and the Japanese, and a few others) didn't understand the biology of good hygiene, but they did practice good hygiene as a social norm.

Infectious disease is a product of globalisation and people living in close quarters. Tribes are already socially distanced to some degree, so an epidemic might kill most of a tribe, but is unlikely to infect millions.

This is why people who live in isolation from the outside world are so vulnerable. Upon first contact, half of the population can die from respiratory disease, no doubt from common cold and flu viruses, unless adequate medical care is provided. The current pandemic is caused by a single novel pathogen. Imagine what would happen to a group of people if they were exposed to a over dozen of them. It would be pure carnage.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24090-how-many-uncontacted-tribes-are-left-in-the-world/

[coppice]

Infectious disease is a product of globalisation and people living in close quarters.

Well, of course, because before we had easy global travel there had never been anything like the black plague sweeping across continents.

[Zero999]

Infectious disease is a product of globalisation and people living in close quarters.

Well, of course, because before we had easy global travel there had never been anything like the black plague sweeping across continents.

That was the start of globalisation. Air travel isn't required for a global pandemic to occur. Even back then, people travelled from one country to another frequently enough to spread disease, which generally affected urban areas worst. Brown rats, along with Oriental rat fleas which carried the black death, were introduced to Europe, from Asia. It's no coincidence it didn't spread to areas with less/no contact to the rest of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, the Americas etc.

[CatalinaWOW]

It is also true that we have almost no idea if there have been world wide pandemics before the black plague.  Our history just isn't good enough to know.  But genetic studies indicate the modern human strain went through a bottleneck a few tens of thousands of years ago, when the worldwide population of those who left descendants was just a few hundred individuals.  Lots of theories about what happened, but plague is one possibility.

There is no question that globalization and high population have created conditions for frequent development and rapid spread of disease, but it is not a necessary condition.

[Jan Audio]

Its simple, people did not travel like now, big chance this would not happen.

[nctnico]

Its simple, people did not travel like now, big chance this would not happen.

That is a misconception. People always have travelled and disseases spread very easely. For example: Dzjengis Khan ruled a vast empire spanning from the east part of China to nearly Germany. And yet his messengers where able to get a message from one end to the other in 7 days or so. That was 800 years ago.

[Zero999]

Its simple, people did not travel like now, big chance this would not happen.

That is a misconception. People always have travelled and disseases spread very easely. For example: Dzjengis Khan ruled a vast empire spanning from the east part of China to nearly Germany. And yet his messengers where able to get a message from one end to the other in 7 days or so. That was 800 years ago.

The difference is speed and frequency. If we look at the animal kingdom. Infectious diseases are more prevalent in animals which travel long distances and mix lots, such as geese. They're less common in animals such as cats which spend most of their time alone.

It's probably true that humans have had infectious diseases since the dawn of humanity, but they do seem to be more common as we started living in cities, travelling more and domesticating animals. Vaccines and antibiotics are widely seen as the main reasons less disease, but improved hygiene is the main reason.

[coppice]

Infectious disease is a product of globalisation and people living in close quarters.

Well, of course, because before we had easy global travel there had never been anything like the black plague sweeping across continents.

That was the start of globalisation. Air travel isn't required for a global pandemic to occur. Even back then, people travelled from one country to another frequently enough to spread disease, which generally affected urban areas worst. Brown rats, along with Oriental rat fleas which carried the black death, were introduced to Europe, from Asia. It's no coincidence it didn't spread to areas with less/no contact to the rest of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, the Americas etc.

By your measure of globalization it goes back to prehistory. There is lots of evidence of people traded around any part of the global they knew about and could reach from the time trade began. This has ebbed and flowed - read things like tales of the wealthy of Florence travelling around Italy as trade opened up for them, and being shocked by things like the Colosseum. They had been through a period of great insularity and knew nothing of ancient Rome. Clearly, these trade travellers did bring about pandemics, like the plague.

[nctnico]

Its simple, people did not travel like now, big chance this would not happen.

That is a misconception. People always have travelled and disseases spread very easely. For example: Dzjengis Khan ruled a vast empire spanning from the east part of China to nearly Germany. And yet his messengers where able to get a message from one end to the other in 7 days or so. That was 800 years ago.

The difference is speed and frequency. If we look at the animal kingdom. Infectious diseases are more prevalent in animals which travel long distances and mix lots, such as geese. They're less common in animals such as cats which spend most of their time alone.

It's probably true that humans have had infectious diseases since the dawn of humanity, but they do seem to be more common as we started living in cities, travelling more and domesticating animals. Vaccines and antibiotics are widely seen as the main reasons less disease, but improved hygiene is the main reason.

Actually it is both. Hygiene works well for bacteria and virusses which are spread through excrement and animals found around the house but where it comes to virussen which spread through air (like Small pocks, Corona, Measles, etc) vaccination is the only thing that helps in dense populations.

Just compare Cholera to Polio and look when big outbreaks stopped. In the NL the last big Cholera outbreak was half way the 1800's, the last big outbreak of Polio was half way the 1900's and Polio was only stopped when mass vaccination programs started.

[GlennSprigg]

NOW he has (?) a humanoid robot in the pipeline, to take over boring domestic tasks...
I can't help imagining that one will soon after have a certain 'Strap-On' around it's waist!!   
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/tesla-plans-humanoid-robot-for-manual-labour-in-2022-musk-says-20210820-p58kl6.html

[EEVblog]

NOW he has (?) a humanoid robot in the pipeline, to take over boring domestic tasks...

Odds on it won't even make the market.

[Bud]

Solution looking for a problem.

[tpowell1830]

NOW he has (?) a humanoid robot in the pipeline, to take over boring domestic tasks...

Odds on it won't even make the market.

My guess is that it is a gimmic to draw in more AI/robotics expertise. This was the sole purpose of the AI presentation to begin with, to lure new talent to Tesla.

Solution looking for a problem.

There is a possibility that robots with pre-programmed tasks go to Mars first, although a humanoid robot seems impractical for such tasks. I was thinking the dog type robot is more robust and adaptable for tasks on Mars.

[james_s]

We figured out quite a long time ago that a humanoid form makes little sense for a robot. It is extremely versatile but that comes at a cost of having many compromises. With robots it is much more sensible to make a variety of robots optimized for performing specific tasks. For example a Roomba makes a lot more sense than a humanoid robot with an upright vacuum cleaner. An industrial robot on an automotive assembly line has no use for legs, a body or a head, it doesn't need to move itself around, all it needs is an arm. It would be silly to build a humanoid robot, hand it a welding gun and have it stand there welding body panels as they go by.

[wraper]

We figured out quite a long time ago that a humanoid form makes little sense for a robot. It is extremely versatile but that comes at a cost of having many compromises. With robots it is much more sensible to make a variety of robots optimized for performing specific tasks. For example a Roomba makes a lot more sense than a humanoid robot with an upright vacuum cleaner. An industrial robot on an automotive assembly line has no use for legs, a body or a head, it doesn't need to move itself around, all it needs is an arm. It would be silly to build a humanoid robot, hand it a welding gun and have it stand there welding body panels as they go by.

For operating in a world made for humans you need a humanlike robot. It's not a robot for industrial environment where it can be specialized to do only a narrow range of tasks.

[SiliconWizard]

NOW he has (?) a humanoid robot in the pipeline, to take over boring domestic tasks...

Odds on it won't even make the market.

My guess is that it is a gimmic to draw in more AI/robotics expertise. This was the sole purpose of the AI presentation to begin with, to lure new talent to Tesla.

Yes. As always. Lure resources. Talents and cash.

[sandalcandal]

Nice summary of AI day content


Also on board with the idea that the humanoid robot is just bait to try pull talent/resources in.

[james_s]

For operating in a world made for humans you need a humanlike robot. It's not a robot for industrial environment where it can be specialized to do only a narrow range of tasks.

Why? I have several Roomba vacuuming robots in my house, they have been performing a very useful task for me for around a decade now. They are not humanlike at all, they are specialized to do a very narrow range of tasks, vacuuming and sweeping my floors and they do it very well. I have a separate Scooba robot that mops my hard floors. It would be stupid (and creepy) to have a humanoid robot walking around pushing my upright vacuum cleaner and using a mop and bucket.

[wraper]

For operating in a world made for humans you need a humanlike robot. It's not a robot for industrial environment where it can be specialized to do only a narrow range of tasks.

Why? I have several Roomba vacuuming robots in my house, they have been performing a very useful task for me for around a decade now. They are not humanlike at all, they are specialized to do a very narrow range of tasks, vacuuming and sweeping my floors and they do it very well. I have a separate Scooba robot that mops my hard floors. It would be stupid (and creepy) to have a humanoid robot walking around pushing my upright vacuum cleaner and using a mop and bucket.

And they cannot get past stairs. Nor they can clean anything besides an unobstructed floor.

[Psi]

I think Elon is more thinking about long term using humanoid robot tech to better automate the Tesla car manufacturing lines, rather than sending them mars.

There's stuff that big industrial robots just cant do, you need better vision and manual dexterity

[james_s]

I think Elon is more thinking about long term using humanoid robot tech to better automate the Tesla car manufacturing lines, rather than sending them mars.

There's stuff that big industrial robots just cant do, you need better vision and manual dexterity

Such as?

I cannot think of any industrial task better performed by a humanoid robot than by a specialized robot optimized for the specific task. Cars are built on assembly lines, even human workers are trained for specific tasks, the guy who bolts together engines and transmissions is never going to be installing seats. Improved vision and manual dexterity has nothing to do with humanoid form, it would be better to have a highly articulated arm on a boom than attached to the rest of a humanoid body.

[EEVblog]

I think Elon is more thinking about long term using humanoid robot tech to better automate the Tesla car manufacturing lines, rather than sending them mars.
There's stuff that big industrial robots just cant do, you need better vision and manual dexterity

Nope, he's just having another fantasy wank because he watched I, Robot.
If something on a car production line can be helped with robot automation it already has been. If you wanted better dexterity and vison on a car line the last thing you would design is the complexity of a humanoid robot.
The goal of course is as others said, to recruit robotics talent that otherwise dont give a toss about cars or rockets. Once you have that and start developing stuff, you can pivot in any direction.

[james_s]

And they cannot get past stairs. Nor they can clean anything besides an unobstructed floor.

They don't need to. I have one upstairs and I have a second one downstairs. I have less than $50 invested in each, but even if I paid the crazy $300+ each retail price for new ones it's still going to be vastly cheaper and simpler than a humanoid robot. If I really need a robot to vacuum the stairs someone could design a special staircase vacuuming robot, having all three is STILL going to be cheaper, simpler and more reliable than a humanoid robot. It's always going to be better to have specialized robots tailored to the specific task or group of tasks you want them to do. It might make sense to combine vacuuming and mopping robots, but it is not going to make any sense at all to combine washing your clothes and dusting the shelves into the same machine.