5 ms·
What a bizarre turn of phrase that bricklayers are "safe" only if they continue to engage in their profession, which comes with a substantial risk of injury. O
by jMyles 9y ago
What a bizarre turn of phrase that bricklayers are "safe" only if they continue to engage in their profession, which comes with a substantial risk of injury.
Of course bricklayers will be safer when robots are able to build houses. Then bricklayers will be able to stay home and do as they please.
How have we come to think of the challenge of automating the matter of the universe as within our reach, but the challenge of seeing each other as viable individuals defined by something other than a "job" as unattainable?
- adrianN 9y agoBeing without a job is not without risk either.
- ben509 9y agoOh come on, commuting comes with a substantial risk of injury. People doing work aren't victims, they are moral agents making informed decisions to pursue larger goals.
- jMyles 9y agoOf course - I love work. But I also don't think that it makes sense, in a world of automation, to continue to define people by their work. There is no risk of being "unsafe" just because our species has figured out a way to train robots to do what was once your job. That's really ill thinking; the future is much brighter than that.
- notfromhere 9y agobecause you need money to live and a job is the primary means of earning money.
- jMyles 9y agoI mean, I know that. I get it. My point is: if we can think so far outside the box as to imagine a world where the matter around us literally moves to achieve our will, can't we also imagine a world where this precept no longer holds?
- s73v3r_ 9y ago"Then bricklayers will be able to stay home and do as they please." How? They won't be able to pay their mortgage/rent, and so be forced out onto the street. "but the challenge of seeing each other as viable individuals defined by something other than a "job" as unattainable?" Given this political climate, there isn't any will to help people who have been automated out of a job.