5 ms·

it sounds like this article is asking 'when you replace many good jobs with fewer worse jobs + more automation, do you then redistribute the proceeds of that au

it sounds like this article is asking 'when you replace many good jobs with fewer worse jobs + more automation, do you then redistribute the proceeds of that automation?' (i.e. make it illegal to make a profit selling textiles). Even if they did redistribute the new income to the whole country, it wouldn't bring back the weaving jobs. Those jobs are gone forever. Separately, legislating low margins in an industry sounds like trouble.

codingdave 9y ago
It is going to be easy to simply argue the details, but the broader question is more important -- For any specific use of technology, is it making our society a better place? Or a worse one?
- twelve40 9y ago
  In Luddites' case the tech was clearly making our society a better place, it's (apparently) the transition that was not handled gracefully.
  - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
    That's a strong claim to make without an argument. How has automation and technology made society a better place?
    - adrianN 9y ago
      Look at the machine you're writing your comments on. That thing wouldn't be possible without automation and technology. Fewer people than ever are working mind-numbing, dangerous factory or agriculture jobs. That is a good thing.
      - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
        Neither would the millions of deaths from new advances in military technology be possible without automation and technology. Neither would the perpetuation of fake information and news on a global scale be possible. For every bit of good the internet has done, it has also allowed bad things to occur too. I'm not saying there is no good, but to say that it is only beneficial is a strong claim, I would argue it is more neutral.
        julianmarq 9y ago
        I read the comment you replied to several times and couldn't find where it said that technology was only beneficial. Now your claim that is neutral is the strong one, but also one very easy to test: Don't use or consume anything made possible by technology, if your life isn't impacted in any way then you're correct... In this isolated, anecdotal case.
        ntsplnkv2 9y ago
        > In Luddites' case the tech was clearly making our society a better place, Is what OP said-that is subjective. How is our world, better? Is it truly better? Sure-I have benefited from use of computers, but many people have been killed from use of computers (drones, for example). It is very possible that all of this technology eventually wipes out humanity, which would not be beneficial, would it? The claim that technology has made society better is a very strong one, which no argument was made as for why. Your test isn't a proper test. Technology is neutral in the sense that all of the good it has brought, has also brought upon lots of bad. For every piece of technology used for good(missiles for space travel) there is an equivalent use that has done harm. (Cruise missiles, which have killed scores of people.) I'm not debating that technology had impact-but to say it is all beneficial, is a huge stretch.
        adrianN 9y ago
        Nobody forces the development and adoption of new technology. So any successful technology is "better" for the people buying it. How far back would you go to claim that technology is not beneficial? Pre-industrial? Pre-agriculture? Pre-tool use? Technology made humans the most successful multicellular species we know.
    - adrianN 9y ago
      Look at the machine you're writing your comments on. That thing wouldn't be possible without automation and technology. Fewer people than ever are working mind-numbing, dangerous factory or agriculture jobs. That is a good thing.
  - imartin2k 9y ago
    True, and it is likely the same now again. So the only real question is: Can we get there without the devastating side effects of the transition period, and how?!
    - wav-part 9y ago
      Yes we can. Food & Shelter is cheap. We can very well survive until new marketable skills can be learnt.
      - ska 9y ago
        The lesson of the Luddites is that this doesn't really work - you are likely to have multigenerational negative economic effects. As a society you can either decide that is acceptable or plan to mitigate it, but ignoring it or wishing it away doesn't help.
      - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
        Maybe for people living in Silicon Valley or the west, if this is even feasible.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    On the short term - I mean, a century, maybe plus another half - it wasn't. Technology was making the life of everybody miserable, except for some very few. With time something else changed¹, and tech became a good thing. 1 - My bet is on ubiquity. Capital became so common it started to lose the competition with labor, and all the low hanging fruits for automation were gone, so it couldn't compete on new ways.

codingdave 9y ago

It is going to be easy to simply argue the details, but the broader question is more important -- For any specific use of technology, is it making our society a better place? Or a worse one?

twelve40 9y ago
In Luddites' case the tech was clearly making our society a better place, it's (apparently) the transition that was not handled gracefully.
- ntsplnkv2 9y ago
  That's a strong claim to make without an argument. How has automation and technology made society a better place?
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Look at the machine you're writing your comments on. That thing wouldn't be possible without automation and technology. Fewer people than ever are working mind-numbing, dangerous factory or agriculture jobs. That is a good thing.
    - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
      Neither would the millions of deaths from new advances in military technology be possible without automation and technology. Neither would the perpetuation of fake information and news on a global scale be possible. For every bit of good the internet has done, it has also allowed bad things to occur too. I'm not saying there is no good, but to say that it is only beneficial is a strong claim, I would argue it is more neutral.
      - julianmarq 9y ago
        I read the comment you replied to several times and couldn't find where it said that technology was only beneficial. Now your claim that is neutral is the strong one, but also one very easy to test: Don't use or consume anything made possible by technology, if your life isn't impacted in any way then you're correct... In this isolated, anecdotal case.
        ntsplnkv2 9y ago
        > In Luddites' case the tech was clearly making our society a better place, Is what OP said-that is subjective. How is our world, better? Is it truly better? Sure-I have benefited from use of computers, but many people have been killed from use of computers (drones, for example). It is very possible that all of this technology eventually wipes out humanity, which would not be beneficial, would it? The claim that technology has made society better is a very strong one, which no argument was made as for why. Your test isn't a proper test. Technology is neutral in the sense that all of the good it has brought, has also brought upon lots of bad. For every piece of technology used for good(missiles for space travel) there is an equivalent use that has done harm. (Cruise missiles, which have killed scores of people.) I'm not debating that technology had impact-but to say it is all beneficial, is a huge stretch.
        adrianN 9y ago
        Nobody forces the development and adoption of new technology. So any successful technology is "better" for the people buying it. How far back would you go to claim that technology is not beneficial? Pre-industrial? Pre-agriculture? Pre-tool use? Technology made humans the most successful multicellular species we know.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Look at the machine you're writing your comments on. That thing wouldn't be possible without automation and technology. Fewer people than ever are working mind-numbing, dangerous factory or agriculture jobs. That is a good thing.
- imartin2k 9y ago
  True, and it is likely the same now again. So the only real question is: Can we get there without the devastating side effects of the transition period, and how?!
  - wav-part 9y ago
    Yes we can. Food & Shelter is cheap. We can very well survive until new marketable skills can be learnt.
    - ska 9y ago
      The lesson of the Luddites is that this doesn't really work - you are likely to have multigenerational negative economic effects. As a society you can either decide that is acceptable or plan to mitigate it, but ignoring it or wishing it away doesn't help.
    - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
      Maybe for people living in Silicon Valley or the west, if this is even feasible.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  On the short term - I mean, a century, maybe plus another half - it wasn't. Technology was making the life of everybody miserable, except for some very few. With time something else changed¹, and tech became a good thing. 1 - My bet is on ubiquity. Capital became so common it started to lose the competition with labor, and all the low hanging fruits for automation were gone, so it couldn't compete on new ways.