4 ms·
My answer is... no? Why would that be the case? Those people don't necesarrily have any right to that money. They /arguably/ have a right to a job/food/housing,
by soared 10y ago
My answer is... no? Why would that be the case? Those people don't necesarrily have any right to that money. They /arguably/ have a right to a job/food/housing, but that is a whole other discussion.
Stopping technological progress because its unfair feels absurd.
- stephancoral 10y agoContinuing technical progress just for the sake of progress and at the expense of human life and dignity feels absurd.
- wavefunction 10y agoAnd if we go by soared's answer, it's all for the sake of a diminishingly smaller number of people.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoApply this argument in 1800 and what do you get?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- untog 10y ago> Stopping technological progress because its unfair feels absurd. It's interesting that yours is one of a couple of replies that say stopping progress would be a bad thing. But the OP didn't suggest stopping. There's no reason why you can't progress technically while also considering the human impact of what you're doing. Yes, you might move slower, but humanity will be better off as a result.
- amelius 10y ago> Those people don't necesarrily have any right to that money. And (simplified) the CEO of Uber is somehow entitled to receive the incomes of millions of truck drivers combined, even though all he did was just raising a lot of money, and be in the right place at the right time? > Stopping technological progress because its unfair feels absurd. That was not what I said. But it wouldn't be absurd if it was grossly unfair.
- wildgift 10y agoI wouldn't say it's a "whole other discussion" when the changes are causing the unemployment. When globalization was pushed, the government passed laws to help retrain workers. Maybe it was just a band-aid, but, it was something. Perhaps the government should intervene to direct some of the automation toward producing free housing.