3 ms·

More automation is almost always better - because once you automate something, you can use technological improvement to increase the efficiency, which reduces t

More automation is almost always better - because once you automate something, you can use technological improvement to increase the efficiency, which reduces the total cost of what you just automated, which results in more of whatever was just automated being available at a lower cost. Net gain to humanity. I've never worked on a farm, but I have to believe that 99% of the work is something that most farm workers would probably be more than happy to see automated, such that they could manage the machines, rather than the actual mechanical effort. Move up the food chain, if you will. Also, from the videos I've seen from PETA, it's pretty clear that humans can act pretty horribly around farm animals, so it's not clear to me that the animals are coming off any better either. Long term, though - I say automate the creation of food such that animals are not involved. All of the things we love, meat, eggs, etc.. should be technologically generated so that no animal is harmed in it's creation. Get over the uncanny valley, and even things that would appear to be sacrosanct, such as a waiter/waitress at a restaurant, admitting nurse/doctor in an ER Ward, or teacher in a kindergarden - all of these seem to be things that automation would be a net-win.

api 11y ago
Where is this efficiency and net gain of which you speak? Real estate, food, energy, health care, education, and other necessities are getting more expensive, often dramatically so and sometimes at rates far beyond inflation. If this is an age of rapidly improving efficiency then most things should be getting cheaper. The amount of free time and disposable income we have should be increasing. We should be getting wealthier. Instead the opposite is happening for almost everyone save a tiny class of professionals and capitalists. One could be forgiven for thinking we're living in an age of inefficiency and technological decline, since that's what the price signals are indicating. I'm not sure this is SV or PG's "fault," but PG's rant is smug and non-productive and amounts to a whole lot of "why do they not eat cake?" It makes him sound clueless and out of touch.
- boryas 11y ago
  What about the fact that tons of people can afford super nice things today by the standards of even 20 years ago? Imagine going back in time 20 years and showing somebody the iphone 4. Or going back 100 years and showing them the beat up junkers people drive in India. Both of those would be miracles, and yet today are very affordable.
  - api 11y ago
    Super nice, yes, but not essential. Everything essential is more expensive, often by quite a margin. Housing is insane.
    - prostoalex 11y ago
      You have to be very specific about housing. Some is very cheap http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Detroit,MI/10000p_price/price;a_sort/ http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Detroit,MI/10000p_price/price... And some is very expensive http://homesoftherich.net/2013/05/30000-square-foot-tudor-mansion-in-los-altos-hills-ca-re-listed/ http://homesoftherich.net/2013/05/30000-square-foot-tudor-ma... If price is the factor, deals can be found.
- ghshephard 11y ago
  All of the things that you are describing, housing, food, energy, health care and education are significantly less expensive in terms of "hours worked to afford X" continue to drop in price, in some cases dramatically, than they were 50 years ago. What throws things off, is that new, more desirable, and more expensive items have appeared, that make things look more expensive. That's one of the concerns regarding inequality; is it okay for some members of society to have nicer things than the lower percentile income earners, as long as that group of lower percentile incomer earners have nicer things than they did 50 years ago? Or should we desire that everyone have (roughly) the same quality of thing, even if it now means that the lower percentile would be worse off objectively if inequality wasn't reduced? PG just assumes that the goal is to reduce poverty (as in, amount of food, health care, education) for the lower percentile - but I expect there is a not insignificant group of people who are more interested in reducing inequality, even if that means an (objective) increase in poverty. There is, of course, a third path that he doesn't even mention - and that's reducing inequality by bringing up the lower percentile. As an American, I sometimes wonder if it doesn't even occur to him (he certainly didn't discuss it in any detail in his essay) that you can develop universal health care, education, etc... that provides the same level of service regardless of wealth - which means if the top percentile want (for example) better health care, they end up increasing the level of service for everyone, including themselves. The essay on inequality seemed to have blinders on with regards to that possibility, though I think he gave it passing mention in a sentence regarding bring the bottom up, but didn't discuss it in any great detail.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

api 11y ago

Where is this efficiency and net gain of which you speak? Real estate, food, energy, health care, education, and other necessities are getting more expensive, often dramatically so and sometimes at rates far beyond inflation. If this is an age of rapidly improving efficiency then most things should be getting cheaper. The amount of free time and disposable income we have should be increasing. We should be getting wealthier. Instead the opposite is happening for almost everyone save a tiny class of professionals and capitalists. One could be forgiven for thinking we're living in an age of inefficiency and technological decline, since that's what the price signals are indicating. I'm not sure this is SV or PG's "fault," but PG's rant is smug and non-productive and amounts to a whole lot of "why do they not eat cake?" It makes him sound clueless and out of touch.

boryas 11y ago
What about the fact that tons of people can afford super nice things today by the standards of even 20 years ago? Imagine going back in time 20 years and showing somebody the iphone 4. Or going back 100 years and showing them the beat up junkers people drive in India. Both of those would be miracles, and yet today are very affordable.
- api 11y ago
  Super nice, yes, but not essential. Everything essential is more expensive, often by quite a margin. Housing is insane.
  - prostoalex 11y ago
    You have to be very specific about housing. Some is very cheap http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Detroit,MI/10000p_price/price;a_sort/ http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Detroit,MI/10000p_price/price... And some is very expensive http://homesoftherich.net/2013/05/30000-square-foot-tudor-mansion-in-los-altos-hills-ca-re-listed/ http://homesoftherich.net/2013/05/30000-square-foot-tudor-ma... If price is the factor, deals can be found.
ghshephard 11y ago
All of the things that you are describing, housing, food, energy, health care and education are significantly less expensive in terms of "hours worked to afford X" continue to drop in price, in some cases dramatically, than they were 50 years ago. What throws things off, is that new, more desirable, and more expensive items have appeared, that make things look more expensive. That's one of the concerns regarding inequality; is it okay for some members of society to have nicer things than the lower percentile income earners, as long as that group of lower percentile incomer earners have nicer things than they did 50 years ago? Or should we desire that everyone have (roughly) the same quality of thing, even if it now means that the lower percentile would be worse off objectively if inequality wasn't reduced? PG just assumes that the goal is to reduce poverty (as in, amount of food, health care, education) for the lower percentile - but I expect there is a not insignificant group of people who are more interested in reducing inequality, even if that means an (objective) increase in poverty. There is, of course, a third path that he doesn't even mention - and that's reducing inequality by bringing up the lower percentile. As an American, I sometimes wonder if it doesn't even occur to him (he certainly didn't discuss it in any detail in his essay) that you can develop universal health care, education, etc... that provides the same level of service regardless of wealth - which means if the top percentile want (for example) better health care, they end up increasing the level of service for everyone, including themselves. The essay on inequality seemed to have blinders on with regards to that possibility, though I think he gave it passing mention in a sentence regarding bring the bottom up, but didn't discuss it in any great detail.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]