4 ms·
In a sense, replacing or augmenting labor is a false dichotomy. We can’t actually choose one or the other. ("Capital-Labor substitution" is a thing, in economic
by vonnik 10y ago
In a sense, replacing or augmenting labor is a false dichotomy. We can’t actually choose one or the other. ("Capital-Labor substitution" is a thing, in economics; it's structurally unavoidable.) Most nations will choose both, and the impact will fall unevenly across industries and demographics. That is, some people and professions will be replaced, and some will be augmented.
And among those people who are replaced, some will adapt well and others poorly. Those who adapt well, generally, are those who are willing and able to learn. I suspect that this group will already be in the habit of learning; they may even be part of a culture of learning inculcated by their parents, which will reproduce class privilege from one generation to the next. So those more adept at learning, the metaskill of acquiring new skills, are best positioned to weather the coming technologic changes, and thrive under new conditions.
If we step back as technologists, we have to look at the aggregate effects. They will be contradictory, and therefore, the narrative of technological change must reflect those contradictions. People will be replaced and augmented. Society will be harmed and helped.
And as members of that society who are pushing change, we need to think hard about how to help our fellows on the receiving end cope with their new reality. We need a gospel of learning, evangelists to preach it, and a church to support the practice.
- meric 10y ago>> So those more adept at learning, the metaskill of acquiring new skills, are best positioned to weather the coming technologic changes, and thrive under new conditions. Or, some are merely older workers, who by the time they acquire a new relevant skill, their working life would have ended.
- eyelidlessness 10y agoI was with you until your last paragraph. Learning is great, but we don't actually need more people to do it. Need is a really important term, and we shouldn't use it inappropriately. What we actually need is to decide whether the people left behind by advances in technology deserve to not be left behind. We can't continue to live in a world where people are increasingly finding themselves with zero options. Either they must become productive with no exceptions (and eliminated if not productive!), or we must support them. I think the choice is clear. We are not just advancing technology, we're creating innumerable surpluses. The only deficit created by those advances is a construct of profit.