4 ms·

A persuasive counter-argument, which convinced me, is: Imagine a pair of horses in the early 1900's talking about technology. One horse worries all these new m

A persuasive counter-argument, which convinced me, is: Imagine a pair of horses in the early 1900's talking about technology. One horse worries all these new mechanical muscles will make horses unnecessary. The other horse reminds him that everything so far has made their lives easier. Remember all that farm work? Remember running from coast-to-coast delivering mail? Remember riding into battle? All terrible. These new city jobs are pretty cushy, and with so many humans in the cities, there will be more jobs for horses than ever. "Even if this car thingy takes off," he might say, "there will be new jobs for horses we can't imagine." But you know what happened: There are still working horses today, but nothing like before. The horse population peaked in 1915. From that point on, it was nothing but down. There isn't a rule of economics that says "better technology makes more better jobs for horses." It sounds shockingly dumb to even say that out loud. But swap "horses" for "humans," and suddenly people think it sounds about right.

SomewhatLikely 10y ago
I think more accurately in your analogy horses = those who derive their income from labor. As automation increases, the returns to capital will accumulate, whereas the returns to labor will decrease. But that capital will still be owned by humans.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  0.1% of humans maybe
WalterBright 10y ago
Horses are not creative, do not plan for the future, and will never think of looking for work. People are not horses.
- candiodari 10y ago
  Maybe you need to meet more humans. At some point you'll realize that perhaps 60%, but likely more, of humans are horses, as far as your comparison goes. Until and unless they are completely and utterly without alternatives most humans will not look to be creative, plan for the future or look for work. Even when they don't have a choice, look at the amount of work government puts into helping them do so, and for how little result. When it comes to living among 20-30 year olds, they simply recently were without alternatives, and were creative and looking. But only for a short while. Some of them for a few years, but those are exceptions. I would even go further. In regions where an economic collapse utterly devastated the local economy and completely wiped it off the face of the earth, there are plenty of humans. There are such regions in Africa and in Asia (requirement seems to be that a human must reasonably be able to survive the winter there, so they are located close to the equator). The humans living there are not looking to improve their (very, very, very bad) situation. I disagree with the point you're making as well. You have to go back some ways, but essentially from the peak of the Roman Empire, at least until the renaissance (we're talking about a good millenium here), unemployment (non-subsistence labour) was going up. Well, it was going up for a few hundred years until it got deep in the 90%, and then it remained there for the rest of the millenium. Obviously, local huge swings were common (e.g. wars). Some say that entire religions (ie. islam) are essentially the result of the employment situation at the end of the Roman Empire (and specifically the raiding in that religion). The economic story of the world is very much not a story of continual improvement. So that humans do not try to improve their situation even goes down to zero. Even when the economic situation gets so bad that you're unlikely to survive your twenties (well, technically you're unlikely to make it to 1 year old, but if you get to 1 year old, odds are good you'll make 25, not much more though). Even under a situation that bad, the incredibly trivial efforts needed to improve that are not getting done (mostly basic sanitation). I am not talking about regions with famine, quite the opposite. I'm talking about regions where humans can survive growing zero food, so there never is any famine, never any need for anything but the most basic amount of work. You get basic shelter, you eat berries and you on occasion make a fire and roast some small animals. So no, it is very much not a given that the economic situation recovers. Not a given at all. If you take the total amount of time that the human race existed and you take the years where recovery "always" happened, and you compare with time where the economic situation allowed for nothing other than subsistence farming, you will find that subsistence economics doesn't just dominate, everything else is so small that you'd better use a log scale and even then ... We live in a period that is incredibly, incredibly much better than any other period in history, but it's duration (so far) is utterly insignificant. Is it the beginning of an open-ended incredible period of history ? Could be. Seems like a long shot when you look at the long term though. A very, very, VERY long shot. Many animals have had such periods. Periods where economics made so much sense that they utterly dominated the world for a short while. Some even used tools, though of course we do it quite a bit more. None of those animals' golden ages lasted. Are we truly sufficiently different ?
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    Human history does not resemble horse history in the slightest. For example, horses do not adapt on a non-evolutionary time scale, but humans have adapted dramatically to changing circumstances all the time.
    - candiodari 10y ago
      I think you'll find that most animals adapt "culturally" (meaning without biological changes). Behavior and location, at least, are known to change on timescales that are much faster than those allowing for evolution to occur. Darwin's birds are even known to (quite literally) change their tune from time to time. Wild parrots have an entire repertoire of tunes they try to get attention from the ladies with, and it changes rapidly, with a few new ones every season. Horses (tame horses) are another example of cultural adaptation. Those have very different behavior from wild horses, and certainly haven't evolved differently (well, only certain breeds, and not that much). Animals making behavior changes based on whether they're the dominant predator or not are a dime a dozen.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        I haven't seen any animals invent clothing so they can live in colder climates or build an aquaduct so they can live far from water or make a boat to cross a lake or selectively breed grass to make corn or invent a pill to control conception or organize to build a barn for a neighbor.
        candiodari 10y ago
        Beavers are of course the big example of a species that essentially builds infrastructure so many more places become safe and productive for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_dam Another spectacular example of an animal building can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySXCdcnKBgg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySXCdcnKBgg Note, no that spider did not just dig himself in. He dug a hole first, then took a piece of wood, arranged surface stuff on it and then used a spider web to attach it to a "heavy" (relatively speaking) branch he dragged on top of his hole. The result is a trapdoor. And a heart attack. Other kinds of buildings and infrastructure animals build so they can live further away are of course burrows and holes of all kinds. They protect animals that otherwise would not be able to find shelter from predators during the night (or in cases, during the day), and massively expand the areas where these animals can survive. In many cases those burrows are a conscious choice. If enough easy shelter is available they do not build burrows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structures_built_by_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structures_built_by_animals Termite mounds are another example of structures that can be baffling in size (the above ground portion can be as big as a house, the underground portion can be bigger than an aircraft carrier). These structures come fully loaded. They have nurseries, food storage, "farms" for other insects, entrances and exits complete with checkpoints, army barracks, contact points with water streams (quite ingenious ones I might add, you'd think that water would flow in and destroy the whole thing), internal highways, ... Some papers allude that quite a few of them even contain underground trade routes with neighboring termite camps along which they trade commodities. Ants are well known for selectively breeding both the plants needed for their cattle, and their cattle. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Relationships_with_other_organisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Relationships_with_other_o... Animals cooperate to achieve common goals. The obvious behavior that gets that is reproduction in solitary species. Hunting in packs. Trekking in packs (from wolves to birds). But I guess you'd want something more "economic" for an example. Ok, let's see. How about Weaver nests ? They're a pretty fucking direct example of building something with -and at least partially for- your neighbor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociable_weaver#Nesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociable_weaver#Nesting
moxious 10y ago
That isn't a counter-argument, that's an analogy. It sounds quite nice, but it's also a bit a straw-man. The people who don't think technology is going to destroy work (I'm in that group) would never claim that there's a law of economics that says better technology makes more jobs. If you'll note in what I said, it's an observation about what people are (and what horses are not) that's going to keep things rolling. Namely that people are endlessly creative, and always wanting new things. That's kind of the point where the analogy with horses breaks down completely. Besides that of course, horses were valued for their muscles and not for their smarts. For as much as we as a community go on about AI, the robotics community hasn't even cost-effictively automated washing, drying, and folding laundry. To say that they're going to automate most knowledge work seems to me to be beyond grandiose. Not saying it's impossible, just not on any near-term timeline.

SomewhatLikely 10y ago

I think more accurately in your analogy horses = those who derive their income from labor. As automation increases, the returns to capital will accumulate, whereas the returns to labor will decrease. But that capital will still be owned by humans.

throwaway2048 10y ago
0.1% of humans maybe

WalterBright 10y ago

Horses are not creative, do not plan for the future, and will never think of looking for work. People are not horses.

candiodari 10y ago
Maybe you need to meet more humans. At some point you'll realize that perhaps 60%, but likely more, of humans are horses, as far as your comparison goes. Until and unless they are completely and utterly without alternatives most humans will not look to be creative, plan for the future or look for work. Even when they don't have a choice, look at the amount of work government puts into helping them do so, and for how little result. When it comes to living among 20-30 year olds, they simply recently were without alternatives, and were creative and looking. But only for a short while. Some of them for a few years, but those are exceptions. I would even go further. In regions where an economic collapse utterly devastated the local economy and completely wiped it off the face of the earth, there are plenty of humans. There are such regions in Africa and in Asia (requirement seems to be that a human must reasonably be able to survive the winter there, so they are located close to the equator). The humans living there are not looking to improve their (very, very, very bad) situation. I disagree with the point you're making as well. You have to go back some ways, but essentially from the peak of the Roman Empire, at least until the renaissance (we're talking about a good millenium here), unemployment (non-subsistence labour) was going up. Well, it was going up for a few hundred years until it got deep in the 90%, and then it remained there for the rest of the millenium. Obviously, local huge swings were common (e.g. wars). Some say that entire religions (ie. islam) are essentially the result of the employment situation at the end of the Roman Empire (and specifically the raiding in that religion). The economic story of the world is very much not a story of continual improvement. So that humans do not try to improve their situation even goes down to zero. Even when the economic situation gets so bad that you're unlikely to survive your twenties (well, technically you're unlikely to make it to 1 year old, but if you get to 1 year old, odds are good you'll make 25, not much more though). Even under a situation that bad, the incredibly trivial efforts needed to improve that are not getting done (mostly basic sanitation). I am not talking about regions with famine, quite the opposite. I'm talking about regions where humans can survive growing zero food, so there never is any famine, never any need for anything but the most basic amount of work. You get basic shelter, you eat berries and you on occasion make a fire and roast some small animals. So no, it is very much not a given that the economic situation recovers. Not a given at all. If you take the total amount of time that the human race existed and you take the years where recovery "always" happened, and you compare with time where the economic situation allowed for nothing other than subsistence farming, you will find that subsistence economics doesn't just dominate, everything else is so small that you'd better use a log scale and even then ... We live in a period that is incredibly, incredibly much better than any other period in history, but it's duration (so far) is utterly insignificant. Is it the beginning of an open-ended incredible period of history ? Could be. Seems like a long shot when you look at the long term though. A very, very, VERY long shot. Many animals have had such periods. Periods where economics made so much sense that they utterly dominated the world for a short while. Some even used tools, though of course we do it quite a bit more. None of those animals' golden ages lasted. Are we truly sufficiently different ?
- WalterBright 10y ago
  Human history does not resemble horse history in the slightest. For example, horses do not adapt on a non-evolutionary time scale, but humans have adapted dramatically to changing circumstances all the time.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    I think you'll find that most animals adapt "culturally" (meaning without biological changes). Behavior and location, at least, are known to change on timescales that are much faster than those allowing for evolution to occur. Darwin's birds are even known to (quite literally) change their tune from time to time. Wild parrots have an entire repertoire of tunes they try to get attention from the ladies with, and it changes rapidly, with a few new ones every season. Horses (tame horses) are another example of cultural adaptation. Those have very different behavior from wild horses, and certainly haven't evolved differently (well, only certain breeds, and not that much). Animals making behavior changes based on whether they're the dominant predator or not are a dime a dozen.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      I haven't seen any animals invent clothing so they can live in colder climates or build an aquaduct so they can live far from water or make a boat to cross a lake or selectively breed grass to make corn or invent a pill to control conception or organize to build a barn for a neighbor.
      - candiodari 10y ago
        Beavers are of course the big example of a species that essentially builds infrastructure so many more places become safe and productive for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_dam Another spectacular example of an animal building can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySXCdcnKBgg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySXCdcnKBgg Note, no that spider did not just dig himself in. He dug a hole first, then took a piece of wood, arranged surface stuff on it and then used a spider web to attach it to a "heavy" (relatively speaking) branch he dragged on top of his hole. The result is a trapdoor. And a heart attack. Other kinds of buildings and infrastructure animals build so they can live further away are of course burrows and holes of all kinds. They protect animals that otherwise would not be able to find shelter from predators during the night (or in cases, during the day), and massively expand the areas where these animals can survive. In many cases those burrows are a conscious choice. If enough easy shelter is available they do not build burrows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structures_built_by_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structures_built_by_animals Termite mounds are another example of structures that can be baffling in size (the above ground portion can be as big as a house, the underground portion can be bigger than an aircraft carrier). These structures come fully loaded. They have nurseries, food storage, "farms" for other insects, entrances and exits complete with checkpoints, army barracks, contact points with water streams (quite ingenious ones I might add, you'd think that water would flow in and destroy the whole thing), internal highways, ... Some papers allude that quite a few of them even contain underground trade routes with neighboring termite camps along which they trade commodities. Ants are well known for selectively breeding both the plants needed for their cattle, and their cattle. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Relationships_with_other_organisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Relationships_with_other_o... Animals cooperate to achieve common goals. The obvious behavior that gets that is reproduction in solitary species. Hunting in packs. Trekking in packs (from wolves to birds). But I guess you'd want something more "economic" for an example. Ok, let's see. How about Weaver nests ? They're a pretty fucking direct example of building something with -and at least partially for- your neighbor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociable_weaver#Nesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociable_weaver#Nesting

moxious 10y ago

That isn't a counter-argument, that's an analogy. It sounds quite nice, but it's also a bit a straw-man. The people who don't think technology is going to destroy work (I'm in that group) would never claim that there's a law of economics that says better technology makes more jobs. If you'll note in what I said, it's an observation about what people are (and what horses are not) that's going to keep things rolling. Namely that people are endlessly creative, and always wanting new things. That's kind of the point where the analogy with horses breaks down completely. Besides that of course, horses were valued for their muscles and not for their smarts. For as much as we as a community go on about AI, the robotics community hasn't even cost-effictively automated washing, drying, and folding laundry. To say that they're going to automate most knowledge work seems to me to be beyond grandiose. Not saying it's impossible, just not on any near-term timeline.