4 ms·

This logic is full of holes. A robot can, by not needing to rest, be vastly more productive than the same person. The robot can be designed to never make a mist

This logic is full of holes. A robot can, by not needing to rest, be vastly more productive than the same person. The robot can be designed to never make a mistake too. Indeed, automation of all aspects of bread production would increase the bread supply. And the person needed bread either way, so unless you're saying that their death is the alternative, what they do with their day is irrelevant. And about fuel, I guess "burns oil" tugs at more heartstrings than "burns solar energy."

cousin_it 10y ago
The argument is talking about the marginal case [1] where the robot is about as cost-effective as the worker it's displacing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_concepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_concepts
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Noseshine 10y ago
> This logic is full of holes. I don't agree. The commenter said that now both the robot and the worker use resources. It's gotten better if you only look at the business and ignore the laid-off worker. Note that I'm always for such improvements, the solution for a broken system should not be to let people do useless jobs (like the road workers whose sole job it is to hold up a "Stop" sign in a construction zone).
TeMPOraL 10y ago
I think the argument is solid, but not that impactful. Sure, worker + robot = seems like more energy used than worker alone. But robots will be more efficient, probably impressively so if you factor in energy savings on human commute and maintaining "habitable" (for lack of better word) conditions in the workplace. Lights, HVAC, safety equipment, etc. Given that, it's not inconceivable that welfare humans + working robots could use less energy than working humans alone! But that's all besides the point. Even if energy usage E(humans+robots) = 2 x E(humans) (and I suspect it's more like factor 1.1x), it's still worth the cost for the quality-of-life increase for those humans. Economy should not be about optimizing its random and fluctuating "productivity" function. It's about improving quality of life for humans.

cousin_it 10y ago

The argument is talking about the marginal case [1] where the robot is about as cost-effective as the worker it's displacing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_concepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_concepts

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Noseshine 10y ago

> This logic is full of holes. I don't agree. The commenter said that now both the robot and the worker use resources. It's gotten better if you only look at the business and ignore the laid-off worker. Note that I'm always for such improvements, the solution for a broken system should not be to let people do useless jobs (like the road workers whose sole job it is to hold up a "Stop" sign in a construction zone).

TeMPOraL 10y ago

I think the argument is solid, but not that impactful. Sure, worker + robot = seems like more energy used than worker alone. But robots will be more efficient, probably impressively so if you factor in energy savings on human commute and maintaining "habitable" (for lack of better word) conditions in the workplace. Lights, HVAC, safety equipment, etc. Given that, it's not inconceivable that welfare humans + working robots could use less energy than working humans alone! But that's all besides the point. Even if energy usage E(humans+robots) = 2 x E(humans) (and I suspect it's more like factor 1.1x), it's still worth the cost for the quality-of-life increase for those humans. Economy should not be about optimizing its random and fluctuating "productivity" function. It's about improving quality of life for humans.