4 ms·

What really bothered me at the end of the commerical was the fact that the person could be in home in time for dinner. Unless we have some form of UBI, where i

• conanbatt 9y ago
  What I find truly interesting of this thinking is that technological advances in the future are cataclysmic, but in the past are necessary. It never becomes something like "lets destroy all the farming machinery, so we create more jobs plowing the land".
  • marcosdumay 9y ago
    Oh, you can rest assured that we have enough cataclysms in history to make the case. There's that entire "let's destroy all machinery that is taking your jobs" movement that gave a name to the "avoiding new things" attitude. All that in a period when people were choosing between literally dying of huger unemployed or of extenuation at work. Just because the cataclysm is temporary does not mean it didn't exist.
    • conanbatt 9y ago
      Would you advocate to destroy all the machinery those people clamored against today?
      • marcosdumay 9y ago
        Of course not. But some welfare would have saved a few million lives, greatly enriched any country (although people didn't know that by the time), and removed one or two world wars from our history.
        • conanbatt 9y ago
          You got some leaps of faith there. Capitalism was basically born by the application of technology disruptively like it did. Saddling the creative forces with the consequences can easily prevent the change from happening at all, and in the end, it is better for the whole.