5 ms·

Educate them with all of the free time created from automation, then put them back in to the work force.

by gramstrong 9y ago

Jtsummers 9y ago
That requires economical access to education opportunities, which is presently not the norm in the US.
- gramstrong 9y ago
  Neither is unlimited leisure. I'm proposing the former in place of the latter.
cmahler7 9y ago
you can educate people as much as you want, the majority aren't going to be able to become engineers and physicists. Unless we can get to the point where we can manipulate genes to increase intelligence that's not a solution to the problem
- ryandrake 9y ago
  It sounds like your argument is that the ability to become an engineer or physicist is an in-born trait, which no amount of study and work can overcome, which sounds absurd to me. As the high school coach used to say: "You don't need talent to practice!" Barring people truly born with mental disabilities, anyone can do it with the right attitude and resources. I'd be less worried about the gene pool and more worried about the unequal distribution of education spending causing pockets of the country to be financially unable to educate people.
  - sdflkd 9y ago
    > It sounds like your argument is that the ability to become an engineer or physicist is an in-born trait, which no amount of study and work can overcome, which sounds absurd to me. Do you have evidence of the contrary? Of the top X% of highschool students who make it to engineering programs at my university, roughly 40% fail or switch majors. If they can't do it, how do you expect average or lower people to? It is simply not feasible.
okreallywtf 9y ago
Educate them with what money? That requires redistribution of wealth because these people will not leave the workforce with the means to retrain and reeducate themselves. How many scientist and engineers can any future workforce support? There will be a limit to how many "production" jobs there can be. By this I mean manufacturing, farming, infrastructure etc. This still leaves many creative endevours that can be produced and consumed almost without limit - but this also assumes people have expendable income.
- gramstrong 9y ago
  I guarantee you that the majority of Americans are immediately on board with free education once they realize the alternative is a lifetime of welfare. As far as how many scientists and engineers we need? Virtually infinite if you're creative enough. There are plenty of problems left to solve that we haven't even started. The best motivator for finding and solving those problems? Money.
  - petra 9y ago
    Unlike software, in many fields, the limits to innovation isn't money to pay engineers, but money do stuff: build things, run experiments, etc.
petra 9y ago
Education is just a temporary solution. Soon, we might have machines doing engineering/innovation for us.

Educate them with all of the free time created from automation, then put them back in to the work force.

Jtsummers 9y ago

That requires economical access to education opportunities, which is presently not the norm in the US.

gramstrong 9y ago
Neither is unlimited leisure. I'm proposing the former in place of the latter.

cmahler7 9y ago

you can educate people as much as you want, the majority aren't going to be able to become engineers and physicists. Unless we can get to the point where we can manipulate genes to increase intelligence that's not a solution to the problem

ryandrake 9y ago
It sounds like your argument is that the ability to become an engineer or physicist is an in-born trait, which no amount of study and work can overcome, which sounds absurd to me. As the high school coach used to say: "You don't need talent to practice!" Barring people truly born with mental disabilities, anyone can do it with the right attitude and resources. I'd be less worried about the gene pool and more worried about the unequal distribution of education spending causing pockets of the country to be financially unable to educate people.
- sdflkd 9y ago
  > It sounds like your argument is that the ability to become an engineer or physicist is an in-born trait, which no amount of study and work can overcome, which sounds absurd to me. Do you have evidence of the contrary? Of the top X% of highschool students who make it to engineering programs at my university, roughly 40% fail or switch majors. If they can't do it, how do you expect average or lower people to? It is simply not feasible.

okreallywtf 9y ago

Educate them with what money? That requires redistribution of wealth because these people will not leave the workforce with the means to retrain and reeducate themselves. How many scientist and engineers can any future workforce support? There will be a limit to how many "production" jobs there can be. By this I mean manufacturing, farming, infrastructure etc. This still leaves many creative endevours that can be produced and consumed almost without limit - but this also assumes people have expendable income.

gramstrong 9y ago
I guarantee you that the majority of Americans are immediately on board with free education once they realize the alternative is a lifetime of welfare. As far as how many scientists and engineers we need? Virtually infinite if you're creative enough. There are plenty of problems left to solve that we haven't even started. The best motivator for finding and solving those problems? Money.
- petra 9y ago
  Unlike software, in many fields, the limits to innovation isn't money to pay engineers, but money do stuff: build things, run experiments, etc.

petra 9y ago

Education is just a temporary solution. Soon, we might have machines doing engineering/innovation for us.