6 ms·

> Mass automation doesn't remove the underclass; it just makes it a non-working underclass instead of a working underclass. That is not an improvement. How is

> Mass automation doesn't remove the underclass; it just makes it a non-working underclass instead of a working underclass. That is not an improvement. How is that not an improvement? So we have a certain segment of the population that doesn't produce, when we have such a small portion of the population producing such wealth, does it really matter? This whole argument is based on the predication that everyone must "earn their keep" and in the days where the hunters would leave the village daily to kill food, that was true, but when 2 of the hunters in our village bring home enough daily to feed the entire village 10 times over, is it really relevant the contribution of the other 20 hunters? Or is it more beneficial to the village to have them doing other things that while not intrinsically valuable, could improve the lives of the other villagers, the 2 hunters included? It's a little hyperbolic I admit, but I'd like to think that once we reach the point where less and less actual work is required that we'll branch out into other things, not simply let people who aren't working die off in the streets. Man was not made to toil daily for his meager wage and die.

pdonis 9y ago
You are basically limiting "produce" to mean produce basic subsistence items like food, clothing, and shelter. Yes, of course the fraction of people that need to work to produce those things will decrease with automation--that's been happening for most of human history, and has been happening a lot faster since the Industrial Revolution. In the US in the late 19th century, IIRC, something like 19 out of 20 people worked on farms. Now it's about 1 in 20. But there are two things that can happen with the surplus capacity available. One is for people to, as you say, "branch out into other things"--produce things other than food, clothing, and shelter. There is a basically limitless demand for goods and services, and once one of them gets automated, people just find other things to demand that aren't automated yet. In other words, just as you say, you have people doing things that improve the lives of everyone. The other thing that can happen with the surplus capacity available is that it gets wasted. People who find they don't need to work to make a living, do nothing that improves the lives of anyone, including their own. The best case of this is that they sit all day watching soap operas, or something like that. The worst case is that they start doing things that worsen the lives of everyone, like committing crimes. The question is, which of the two possibilities above is the default outcome of mass automation, if mass automation actually does remove the need for the underclass to work at basic subsistence production? You seem to think it will be #1; but my money is on #2. If we want #1 to happen (and I certainly agree that #1 is vastly preferable to #2), we are going to have to give people an incentive to produce things that improve people's lives. I don't think most people will do it without such an incentive, and historically the only incentive we know works is the need to earn a living.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  > You are basically limiting "produce" to mean produce basic subsistence items like food, clothing, and shelter. I would also include the arts, entertainment, service work, craftsmanship, etc. But going on... > Yes, of course the fraction of people that need to work to produce those things will decrease with automation--that's been happening for most of human history, and has been happening a lot faster since the Industrial Revolution. In the US in the late 19th century, IIRC, something like 19 out of 20 people worked on farms. Now it's about 1 in 20. I feel like you're conflating labor specialization, which is what happened for most of human history where machine augmentations created more and more specific jobs (instead of "farmer" you had farm hands, farm maintenance technician, agricultural technician, etc.) all of which were new, different, and usually better jobs with more education and more pay. Automation on the other hand eliminates jobs as it goes; instead of a new tractor that enables one worker to plow many fields, an automated tractor plows fields 24 hours a day, without breaks, food, or complaints. The guy who drove the tractor has been automated; he hasn't had his labor specialized, his labor no longer exists. So now he has to find a new job which is not nearly the same as training up for a job that he got specialized to. As to this: > The question is, which of the two possibilities above is the default outcome of mass automation...? The default is certainly #2. My argument is that paying people to sit at home and watch soap operas is preferable to paying them to sit in jail cells. It's also often cheaper, and more humanitarian. But the first step to getting to that kind of place is decoupling work from life, because right now the idea that someone could live off of the excess production of our society is offensive to huge numbers of people, largely because of societal norms that we are in control of, and due to leftover Red Scare.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > I would also include the arts, entertainment, service work, craftsmanship, etc. But that destroys your argument, because these things are not automated and won't be any time soon. Automation certainly does not remove the need for humans to create works of art and entertainment, to perform services, to provide craftsmanship, etc. So if all those things are included in "produce", then there are lots of ways for humans to produce that won't be displaced by automation any time soon. > Automation on the other hand eliminates jobs as it goes So does labor specialization, as you call it. Machine augmentation doesn't just create "more and more specific jobs"--it eliminates the old jobs that didn't require the knowledge of how to use the machines. Also, even if a tractor isn't automated (it requires a human driver), it still enables one human to do work that it took many humans (about 20, with the present state of farm automation in the US) to do before. All those other jobs are indeed eliminated. Historically, farm laborers whose jobs disappeared went to the cities and started working in factories or learned a trade. > My argument is that paying people to sit at home and watch soap operas is preferable to paying them to sit in jail cells. Agreed, but my argument is that if those are the only two choices, we're doomed. Basically, you're saying society will, in the fairly near future, end up stagnant--all important jobs will be automated and all of the humans will just sit around watching soap operas (except, perhaps, for the small number of humans who oversee the automation). And I'm saying that such a society will collapse, because the rest of the universe is not stagnant. Things are always changing, and only humans--human thought and human ingenuity--can cope with change. (And if your answer is that we'll just invent AI and automate that too, that just means we'll be at the mercy of the AI, which I don't see as a good situation.) > the idea that someone could live off of the excess production of our society is offensive to huge numbers of people I would put this differently. I would say that the idea that someone could receive a basic living without producing anything that improves anyone's lives is offensive to huge numbers of people. And it should be.

pdonis 9y ago

You are basically limiting "produce" to mean produce basic subsistence items like food, clothing, and shelter. Yes, of course the fraction of people that need to work to produce those things will decrease with automation--that's been happening for most of human history, and has been happening a lot faster since the Industrial Revolution. In the US in the late 19th century, IIRC, something like 19 out of 20 people worked on farms. Now it's about 1 in 20. But there are two things that can happen with the surplus capacity available. One is for people to, as you say, "branch out into other things"--produce things other than food, clothing, and shelter. There is a basically limitless demand for goods and services, and once one of them gets automated, people just find other things to demand that aren't automated yet. In other words, just as you say, you have people doing things that improve the lives of everyone. The other thing that can happen with the surplus capacity available is that it gets wasted. People who find they don't need to work to make a living, do nothing that improves the lives of anyone, including their own. The best case of this is that they sit all day watching soap operas, or something like that. The worst case is that they start doing things that worsen the lives of everyone, like committing crimes. The question is, which of the two possibilities above is the default outcome of mass automation, if mass automation actually does remove the need for the underclass to work at basic subsistence production? You seem to think it will be #1; but my money is on #2. If we want #1 to happen (and I certainly agree that #1 is vastly preferable to #2), we are going to have to give people an incentive to produce things that improve people's lives. I don't think most people will do it without such an incentive, and historically the only incentive we know works is the need to earn a living.

FussyZeus 9y ago
> You are basically limiting "produce" to mean produce basic subsistence items like food, clothing, and shelter. I would also include the arts, entertainment, service work, craftsmanship, etc. But going on... > Yes, of course the fraction of people that need to work to produce those things will decrease with automation--that's been happening for most of human history, and has been happening a lot faster since the Industrial Revolution. In the US in the late 19th century, IIRC, something like 19 out of 20 people worked on farms. Now it's about 1 in 20. I feel like you're conflating labor specialization, which is what happened for most of human history where machine augmentations created more and more specific jobs (instead of "farmer" you had farm hands, farm maintenance technician, agricultural technician, etc.) all of which were new, different, and usually better jobs with more education and more pay. Automation on the other hand eliminates jobs as it goes; instead of a new tractor that enables one worker to plow many fields, an automated tractor plows fields 24 hours a day, without breaks, food, or complaints. The guy who drove the tractor has been automated; he hasn't had his labor specialized, his labor no longer exists. So now he has to find a new job which is not nearly the same as training up for a job that he got specialized to. As to this: > The question is, which of the two possibilities above is the default outcome of mass automation...? The default is certainly #2. My argument is that paying people to sit at home and watch soap operas is preferable to paying them to sit in jail cells. It's also often cheaper, and more humanitarian. But the first step to getting to that kind of place is decoupling work from life, because right now the idea that someone could live off of the excess production of our society is offensive to huge numbers of people, largely because of societal norms that we are in control of, and due to leftover Red Scare.
- pdonis 9y ago
  > I would also include the arts, entertainment, service work, craftsmanship, etc. But that destroys your argument, because these things are not automated and won't be any time soon. Automation certainly does not remove the need for humans to create works of art and entertainment, to perform services, to provide craftsmanship, etc. So if all those things are included in "produce", then there are lots of ways for humans to produce that won't be displaced by automation any time soon. > Automation on the other hand eliminates jobs as it goes So does labor specialization, as you call it. Machine augmentation doesn't just create "more and more specific jobs"--it eliminates the old jobs that didn't require the knowledge of how to use the machines. Also, even if a tractor isn't automated (it requires a human driver), it still enables one human to do work that it took many humans (about 20, with the present state of farm automation in the US) to do before. All those other jobs are indeed eliminated. Historically, farm laborers whose jobs disappeared went to the cities and started working in factories or learned a trade. > My argument is that paying people to sit at home and watch soap operas is preferable to paying them to sit in jail cells. Agreed, but my argument is that if those are the only two choices, we're doomed. Basically, you're saying society will, in the fairly near future, end up stagnant--all important jobs will be automated and all of the humans will just sit around watching soap operas (except, perhaps, for the small number of humans who oversee the automation). And I'm saying that such a society will collapse, because the rest of the universe is not stagnant. Things are always changing, and only humans--human thought and human ingenuity--can cope with change. (And if your answer is that we'll just invent AI and automate that too, that just means we'll be at the mercy of the AI, which I don't see as a good situation.) > the idea that someone could live off of the excess production of our society is offensive to huge numbers of people I would put this differently. I would say that the idea that someone could receive a basic living without producing anything that improves anyone's lives is offensive to huge numbers of people. And it should be.