4 ms·

Ya, I grant you that 'inevitable' is probably too strong. But it does seem that way to me, and that also seems to be the prevailing opinion. And, at the risk o

by darawk 11y ago

Ya, I grant you that 'inevitable' is probably too strong. But it does seem that way to me, and that also seems to be the prevailing opinion. And, at the risk of misinterpreting you or putting words in your mouth, I think you may be interpreting 'efficiency' as necessarily squeezing more and more out of workers. And this is, in general, true. However, efficiency can also ultimately mean a society where people no longer have to work at all - where only a comparatively small number of people need to be engaged in intense knowledge work, and the rest of civilization can live entirely from the fruits of those people's labors, and the automated production processes they operate and advance.

pron 11y ago
> However, efficiency can also ultimately mean a society where people no longer have to work at all Indeed, that is an interesting concept, but at this point in time that goal is still far off and somewhat utopic, and so the question is whether there is only one path towards that goal (assuming it is achievable, desirable, or even if it is inevitable), and what and who we choose to sacrifice in the meantime.
- darawk 11y ago
  Ya, I agree. To me the right thing to do looks like this: Efficiency at some (possibly significant) cost to workers, and then use some of the fruits of that efficiency to subsidize the migration of those people to new jobs, or just subsidize their lives. I suppose the way I see it efficiency is an absolute goal - the debate should be about what we do with the product of that efficiency.
Joof 11y ago
I think that society is excellent at finding new ways to find things that we can classify as work. All our needs and wants may be possible to meet, but people will still believe that everyone must work. If you want that as a goal, social change may be more important than technological change. Who controls the automation? A small set of people.

by darawk 11y ago

pron 11y ago

> However, efficiency can also ultimately mean a society where people no longer have to work at all Indeed, that is an interesting concept, but at this point in time that goal is still far off and somewhat utopic, and so the question is whether there is only one path towards that goal (assuming it is achievable, desirable, or even if it is inevitable), and what and who we choose to sacrifice in the meantime.

darawk 11y ago
Ya, I agree. To me the right thing to do looks like this: Efficiency at some (possibly significant) cost to workers, and then use some of the fruits of that efficiency to subsidize the migration of those people to new jobs, or just subsidize their lives. I suppose the way I see it efficiency is an absolute goal - the debate should be about what we do with the product of that efficiency.

Joof 11y ago

I think that society is excellent at finding new ways to find things that we can classify as work. All our needs and wants may be possible to meet, but people will still believe that everyone must work. If you want that as a goal, social change may be more important than technological change. Who controls the automation? A small set of people.