4 ms·

I believe the designation of the people as useless is based on the fact that part of our value to society is measured by the utility that provide to society and

by ninju 10y ago

I believe the designation of the people as useless is based on the fact that part of our value to society is measured by the utility that provide to society and with continuing automation of human tasks it will be harder for us to find way for all the humans in the world to provide utility at the same level as they are now. Now I agree with you that this (valuing people by the utility they provide) is a shallow and incorrect way of measuring a human being's value but it is true.

davidivadavid 10y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I think I'm talking about something slightly different. First, I think that what you're pointing out in your first paragraph, while wildly accepted, is completely unproven. Second, I don't think valuing people by utility is necessarily shallow, but the way I worded my original post might lead you to believe that. Here's what I'm getting at (and failing horribly, because I'm too lazy to think it through): many articles have been written that seem to outline scenarios where runaway automation leads to a situation where you have some sort of closed loop automated economy where humans have no role to play, thus making humanity "useless." I think that's hogwash. It presupposes that the goal of humanity is to perform a certain number of tasks that happen to be the tasks we currently perform. If we can find something to substitute that performs the same tasks, our goal is accomplished, and thus humanity is "useless." That's when I generally go: that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
- ninju 10y ago
  Yes, I agree that the idea that with continued automation humanity's role on earth will become un-necessary and superfluous (the useless that I believe you are referring to) is hogwash and not a concern. The reason for the automation revolution (I just coined that phrase) is allow humanity to become a better citizen of the planet and not to discarded.

by ninju 10y ago

davidivadavid 10y ago

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I think I'm talking about something slightly different. First, I think that what you're pointing out in your first paragraph, while wildly accepted, is completely unproven. Second, I don't think valuing people by utility is necessarily shallow, but the way I worded my original post might lead you to believe that. Here's what I'm getting at (and failing horribly, because I'm too lazy to think it through): many articles have been written that seem to outline scenarios where runaway automation leads to a situation where you have some sort of closed loop automated economy where humans have no role to play, thus making humanity "useless." I think that's hogwash. It presupposes that the goal of humanity is to perform a certain number of tasks that happen to be the tasks we currently perform. If we can find something to substitute that performs the same tasks, our goal is accomplished, and thus humanity is "useless." That's when I generally go: that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

ninju 10y ago
Yes, I agree that the idea that with continued automation humanity's role on earth will become un-necessary and superfluous (the useless that I believe you are referring to) is hogwash and not a concern. The reason for the automation revolution (I just coined that phrase) is allow humanity to become a better citizen of the planet and not to discarded.