4 ms·

Some things simply can't be automated by their very nature. "Home cooked meal" loses a lot of its appeal if it's Mom's robot doing the work. And not everything

Some things simply can't be automated by their very nature. "Home cooked meal" loses a lot of its appeal if it's Mom's robot doing the work. And not everything comes down to a cost/utility calculation. For example I have a poster on my wall that was silk screened by some french dude almost 100 years ago that has 0 utility yet I prefer it over any "modern" thing I could replace it with that may have some practical utilititarian value. Anyhoo, the main point I'm trying to make is there has been automation for a long, long time and we aren't any worse off because of it. Some could even argue were better off because of it even.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> And not everything comes down to a cost/utility calculation. I think you say this because you misunderstand economic utility, which is subjective value derived from the item in question.
shkkmo 9y ago
> "Home cooked meal" loses a lot of its appeal if it's Mom's robot doing the work. "Home Cooked Meal" isn't typically a job. I would argue that when it is, the difference between "Prepared by my employee human" and "Prepared by my robotic property" doesn't lose much appeal given equivalent quality/variety. However, I get your point. Many people do place a premium on expressions of power. The one thing that a human cooked meal provides that a robot cooked meal doesn't, is the sense of power over another person. I agree that there will probably always be jobs for people, purely based on this desire. However, this is rather beside the point of the article. > Anyhoo, the main point I'm trying to make is there has been automation for a long, long time and we aren't any worse off because of it. Some could even argue were better off because of it even. Most of us would happily agree with you that we are overall better off because of Automation. However, that is also besides the point of this article. The main point of the article is to point out one of the negative effects that can/has come out of automation. Your 'main point' seems to have no bearing on this, hence the downvotes.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> And not everything comes down to a cost/utility calculation. I think you say this because you misunderstand economic utility, which is subjective value derived from the item in question.

shkkmo 9y ago

> "Home cooked meal" loses a lot of its appeal if it's Mom's robot doing the work. "Home Cooked Meal" isn't typically a job. I would argue that when it is, the difference between "Prepared by my employee human" and "Prepared by my robotic property" doesn't lose much appeal given equivalent quality/variety. However, I get your point. Many people do place a premium on expressions of power. The one thing that a human cooked meal provides that a robot cooked meal doesn't, is the sense of power over another person. I agree that there will probably always be jobs for people, purely based on this desire. However, this is rather beside the point of the article. > Anyhoo, the main point I'm trying to make is there has been automation for a long, long time and we aren't any worse off because of it. Some could even argue were better off because of it even. Most of us would happily agree with you that we are overall better off because of Automation. However, that is also besides the point of this article. The main point of the article is to point out one of the negative effects that can/has come out of automation. Your 'main point' seems to have no bearing on this, hence the downvotes.