4 ms·

> You are basically limiting "produce" to mean produce basic subsistence items like food, clothing, and shelter. I would also include the arts, entertainment,

> 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.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  What's offensive is, the thought that the only good in a life is working like a slave to please an intellectual's ideal. Its the old Protestant work ethic, which served us for a time but is rapidly becoming obsolete. In the 1950's we wrote about how robots would remove the yoke of labor from our shoulders, let us go on to be creating and enjoy leisure. Now that it's happening, folks are panicking. Cries of "But people must work; its offensive if they have leisure!" go up on every discussion site. Try to think outside the box. What might people accomplish if they're not required to labor at McD's for 8 hours a day?
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > What's offensive is, the thought that the only good in a life is working like a slave to please an intellectual's ideal. Which is not at all what I said. > What might people accomplish if they're not required to labor at McD's for 8 hours a day? Lots of things, I'm sure. And as long as those things improve people's lives in some way, I'm all for it.
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      How about, leave that up to them to determine? Again, intellectual ideals work as long as we all think alike. Which we don't.
      - pdonis 9y ago
        > How about, leave that up to them to determine? Up to whom? Yes, you get to decide what improves your own life. But you don't get to decide what improves someone else's life.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  > But that destroys your argument, because these things are not automated and won't be any time soon. After the limited time I've spent in my life paying attention to this, I'm not assuming any job, including my own, is safe from automation. > Historically, farm laborers whose jobs disappeared went to the cities and started working in factories or learned a trade. And that is the difference, except this time the cities jobs are being automated and there's no where left to go, as even the farms don't need nearly so many people. And yes there's certainly an argument to be made for the trades which I'm sure are (mostly) safe from automation for awhile, but not forever, and there's a limited pool of people who are skilled enough to do those jobs, and even past that is a limited availability of those jobs, AND AFTER THAT is the fact that as more and more former factory workers, truck drivers, and coal miners all sign on to be plumbers, electricians, etc. all of which are needed that the supply of those workers will explode and the wage they make will therefore shrink. > 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). That't not at all what I said: I said we should have a system in place for that certain group of people who have nothing to contribute, because there's nothing wrong with that. The alternative to feeding and clothing them in their homes is to feed and clothe them in prison, and the former doesn't enrich private prisons and we don't need to pay for guards, not to mention the ethical cost involved in the current situation which is mass incarceration. I'm saying, by virtue of being born, you should be fed, clothed, and sheltered because we can do that and the notion that we simply shouldn't so Mark Zuckerburg can have a fifth house is I'm sorry, a DISGUSTING idea to me. > 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. Why is that offensive? With what we currently spend on defense, we could feed, house, and clothe every homeless person in the United States with Gucci bags, mansions and caviar. Why is it so important that we not? And if you cannot answer without citing tradition or work ethic or something equally arbitrary and archaic, then I'm sorry but I'm not convinced.

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.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
What's offensive is, the thought that the only good in a life is working like a slave to please an intellectual's ideal. Its the old Protestant work ethic, which served us for a time but is rapidly becoming obsolete. In the 1950's we wrote about how robots would remove the yoke of labor from our shoulders, let us go on to be creating and enjoy leisure. Now that it's happening, folks are panicking. Cries of "But people must work; its offensive if they have leisure!" go up on every discussion site. Try to think outside the box. What might people accomplish if they're not required to labor at McD's for 8 hours a day?
- pdonis 9y ago
  > What's offensive is, the thought that the only good in a life is working like a slave to please an intellectual's ideal. Which is not at all what I said. > What might people accomplish if they're not required to labor at McD's for 8 hours a day? Lots of things, I'm sure. And as long as those things improve people's lives in some way, I'm all for it.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    How about, leave that up to them to determine? Again, intellectual ideals work as long as we all think alike. Which we don't.
    - pdonis 9y ago
      > How about, leave that up to them to determine? Up to whom? Yes, you get to decide what improves your own life. But you don't get to decide what improves someone else's life.
FussyZeus 9y ago
> But that destroys your argument, because these things are not automated and won't be any time soon. After the limited time I've spent in my life paying attention to this, I'm not assuming any job, including my own, is safe from automation. > Historically, farm laborers whose jobs disappeared went to the cities and started working in factories or learned a trade. And that is the difference, except this time the cities jobs are being automated and there's no where left to go, as even the farms don't need nearly so many people. And yes there's certainly an argument to be made for the trades which I'm sure are (mostly) safe from automation for awhile, but not forever, and there's a limited pool of people who are skilled enough to do those jobs, and even past that is a limited availability of those jobs, AND AFTER THAT is the fact that as more and more former factory workers, truck drivers, and coal miners all sign on to be plumbers, electricians, etc. all of which are needed that the supply of those workers will explode and the wage they make will therefore shrink. > 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). That't not at all what I said: I said we should have a system in place for that certain group of people who have nothing to contribute, because there's nothing wrong with that. The alternative to feeding and clothing them in their homes is to feed and clothe them in prison, and the former doesn't enrich private prisons and we don't need to pay for guards, not to mention the ethical cost involved in the current situation which is mass incarceration. I'm saying, by virtue of being born, you should be fed, clothed, and sheltered because we can do that and the notion that we simply shouldn't so Mark Zuckerburg can have a fifth house is I'm sorry, a DISGUSTING idea to me. > 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. Why is that offensive? With what we currently spend on defense, we could feed, house, and clothe every homeless person in the United States with Gucci bags, mansions and caviar. Why is it so important that we not? And if you cannot answer without citing tradition or work ethic or something equally arbitrary and archaic, then I'm sorry but I'm not convinced.