4 ms·

From all angles the situation manifests itself as a gridlock. The article seems to have very concretely taken the harrowing position that the future is either d

From all angles the situation manifests itself as a gridlock. The article seems to have very concretely taken the harrowing position that the future is either default or inflation. Now, let's consider the average American Joe in this new world. Things are looking pretty grim for him -- corporations are inevitably looking forward to even more automation (as opposed to manual labor), because it's in their best interest, so as far as I see, there just aren't going to be very many jobs for the larger majority of the people in the times ahead. What then? By application of the original position, a radical rethinking of the fundamentals of governing bodies and economic systems is called for. Unlike centuries ago, when all mechanical work had to have been purely supplied by the raw muscles of humans, we now have technology. We can do so, so much more than we could have imagined with only a limited amount of man's mechanical power. We are actually in a very technical sense within our capability to feed every hungry mouth in the world today. And by any reasonable ethical framework, this free capability absolutely bounds to service this obligation. Thoughts? And please go easy on me here, these are just the late-night musings of a 21st century youngin. ;)

lionhearted 16y ago
> Things are looking pretty grim for him -- corporations are inevitably looking forward to even more automation (as opposed to manual labor), because it's in their best interest, so as far as I see, there just aren't going to be very many jobs for the larger majority of the people in the times ahead. > Thoughts? And please go easy on me here, these are just the late-night musings of a 21st century youngin. ;) A couple thoughts. The first is that your top idea - "automation is coming, people are screwed" has been popular since the Industrial Revolution. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was about automation. The term "Luddite" to refer to a technologically-unsavvy person came from this group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite They actually attacked, broke, and destroyed automatic machinery. They're worth reading about. The reality is, automating things let humans get on to more and more interesting things. Being afraid of automation is like being afraid of Ruby and Python because now what will coders in C do? In reality, automating/streamling/improving one area of business opens opportunities for new things to do. Not too long ago, society was comprised of between 60% and 80% farmers - without machinery and automation, we'd be ploughing fields right now instead of discussing on Hacker News. As long as any human wants or needs are unfilfilled, there's a capacity for almost unlimited amounts of work. And we're nowhere close to automating/obsoleting things - today's manufacturing and shipping is going to look pretty primitative in 100-150 years. I won't hazard a guess of when it'll become available, but this is one of the most exciting new areas that'll come to bear in not-too-long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_engineering
- jimmyjim 16y ago
  I think that the reason that Luddism is a more frightening spectacle than it was shortly after the Industrial Revolution is that due to compounded population growth the competition for the automation jobs is going to be much more fierce.
- gaius 16y ago
  Hmm, I am reminded of that (dreadful) Star Trek movie where one of the characters says "we believe when you create a machine to do the work of a man you steal something from that man" (or something like that). So wrongheaded that I barely even know where to start, yet it seems that many people did and do really believe it. Of course it's only true if the "value" you create consists only of holding people to ransom. But that's not the way honest folk do business.
- davidw 16y ago
  You're right that automation generally improves everyone's lot, by allowing people to create more with less. The problem is that in specific cases, someone may well lose out, and in a very difficult way. If you're a 50 year old factory worker without many skills, losing your job because of automation, the prospect of widgets that are now $1 cheaper each for everyone may seem meager compensation. What is, in the aggregate, a significant gain for society, is a fairly big loss for the individual in question. There are numerous solutions to that problem, of course, and depend a lot on the society and culture involved. Preventing the automation from happening in the first place is probably not a good strategy though. Most countries have policies in place to redistribute wealth in various ways so as to provide some aid to people in the above situation. Of course, those policies have their own problems. "It's complicated..."
- dionidium 16y ago
  Condescending question: What about unsophisticated and marginally intelligent people who are only capable of ploughing fields? I think you're right about moving on to more interesting problems, but I'm not sure most humans are interested in working on interesting problems.

lionhearted 16y ago

> Things are looking pretty grim for him -- corporations are inevitably looking forward to even more automation (as opposed to manual labor), because it's in their best interest, so as far as I see, there just aren't going to be very many jobs for the larger majority of the people in the times ahead. > Thoughts? And please go easy on me here, these are just the late-night musings of a 21st century youngin. ;) A couple thoughts. The first is that your top idea - "automation is coming, people are screwed" has been popular since the Industrial Revolution. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was about automation. The term "Luddite" to refer to a technologically-unsavvy person came from this group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite They actually attacked, broke, and destroyed automatic machinery. They're worth reading about. The reality is, automating things let humans get on to more and more interesting things. Being afraid of automation is like being afraid of Ruby and Python because now what will coders in C do? In reality, automating/streamling/improving one area of business opens opportunities for new things to do. Not too long ago, society was comprised of between 60% and 80% farmers - without machinery and automation, we'd be ploughing fields right now instead of discussing on Hacker News. As long as any human wants or needs are unfilfilled, there's a capacity for almost unlimited amounts of work. And we're nowhere close to automating/obsoleting things - today's manufacturing and shipping is going to look pretty primitative in 100-150 years. I won't hazard a guess of when it'll become available, but this is one of the most exciting new areas that'll come to bear in not-too-long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_engineering

jimmyjim 16y ago
I think that the reason that Luddism is a more frightening spectacle than it was shortly after the Industrial Revolution is that due to compounded population growth the competition for the automation jobs is going to be much more fierce.
gaius 16y ago
Hmm, I am reminded of that (dreadful) Star Trek movie where one of the characters says "we believe when you create a machine to do the work of a man you steal something from that man" (or something like that). So wrongheaded that I barely even know where to start, yet it seems that many people did and do really believe it. Of course it's only true if the "value" you create consists only of holding people to ransom. But that's not the way honest folk do business.
davidw 16y ago
You're right that automation generally improves everyone's lot, by allowing people to create more with less. The problem is that in specific cases, someone may well lose out, and in a very difficult way. If you're a 50 year old factory worker without many skills, losing your job because of automation, the prospect of widgets that are now $1 cheaper each for everyone may seem meager compensation. What is, in the aggregate, a significant gain for society, is a fairly big loss for the individual in question. There are numerous solutions to that problem, of course, and depend a lot on the society and culture involved. Preventing the automation from happening in the first place is probably not a good strategy though. Most countries have policies in place to redistribute wealth in various ways so as to provide some aid to people in the above situation. Of course, those policies have their own problems. "It's complicated..."
dionidium 16y ago
Condescending question: What about unsophisticated and marginally intelligent people who are only capable of ploughing fields? I think you're right about moving on to more interesting problems, but I'm not sure most humans are interested in working on interesting problems.