4 ms·

If there is a future where the technology sector rules everything, then the logical thing is that (almost) everyone is onboard on that sector. That sector will

If there is a future where the technology sector rules everything, then the logical thing is that (almost) everyone is onboard on that sector. That sector will be huge and will have many segments and specializations. In other words, people will need to adapt. The ones who take the risk to jump onboard before the ruling is (100%) a reality will have an advantage/lead. There are low skilled technological jobs for the ones that can't study etc. The world moves this way. If you don't adapt you're out.

chii 9y ago
> The world moves this way. If you don't adapt you're out. while that's true, this statement hids an assumption that a priviledged person implicitly has that they might not even realize. The really poor do not have an opportunity to adapt, because their existing, extenuating circumstances means they are fighting for mere survival in the short term, and cannot expend any energy/resources to adapt for the longer term. Think education - anyone who's earning minimum wage will be hardpressed to adapt by re-educating. Without the help of a third-party (whether gov't or charity), they cannot but continue to just survive on their minimum wage, and then one day, get pushed out of even that job.
- int0x80 9y ago
  Yes, I agree. That is a problem. But that is not a new problem. That has nothing to do with technology. In today's world and 100 years ago, there are lots of poor and miserable people. Wars, corruption, explotation. Africa, Asia, South America etc. If you have a crappy life today because you live in Somalia, 50 years on you will still be fucked and not because of technology. That is a higher level problem. A sociologial/political one. It is a very complex problem that has always been there. I would even argue that technology and globalization gives this helpless people more opportinities. This days, for a stupid example, you can have a youtube channel/whatever and given the free resources online you can produce content and have a chance at making some money that wasn't posible 15 years ago. The entry barrier is much lower. E: The same goes for studing. 20/30 years ago, the best case scenario was studing a degree in a US university with a good status and all. If you couldn't, your best chance was getting a degree in whatever university was near you. If you still couldn't do that, you where out of luck. Now? It's still better to go to MIT if you're lucky. But if you can't you have a chance of learning on your own with the internet. And people are doing that. It won't be the same, but is much better than nothing. Of course, there are still people that can't do that because they don't even have electric network (see the recent news about the teacher in Africa using a blackboard to teach MSoffice for example). Again, that is a much deeper problem.
  - ehnto 9y ago
    I think you didn't address his point. It doesn't matter how low the bar for entry is if you are working two jobs just to scrape together some ramen. The cognitive load of stress makes it extremely hard to tackle these kinds of personal growth tasks even if you can find a sliver of time to do it. Their point I think was that without a helping hand, for example a way to not have to work two jobs but perhaps just the one, then you have the time and cognitive capacity to explore personal growth. Also they seemed to be speaking directly about America, so while poverty in Africa is an issue, saying "man look how bad Africa is" is just avoiding addressing the issue at hand.
    - int0x80 9y ago
      Yes, I see what you mean. In cases of extreme poverty, everything is complicated. The problem is there wether we change/evolve the productive model or not. The problem is there right now and it was there 50 years ago, 100 years ago and so on. If you take away their low qualification "jobs" because of technology, new low qualification jobs will arise. They will be at the same position at least but chances are they will improve their life quality. That is what I think at least. Do you think that avances in technology an automation will make the life of this people worse? Will progress make this people's life more miserable? Will progress make the rich/poor people gap bigger? What is the _root_ of this problem? Are companys investing, making research and developing technology guilty or responsible of this? Do we have to make them responsible of this (ie, make them pay) ? Some may see this different, maybe we should instead pay and encourage/incentivize this companies for their work?
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        >Will progress make the rich/poor people gap bigger? What is the _root_ of this problem? // Absolutely. The root is capitalism puts much of the reward for workers labour in the hands of the already rich owners - with an excess of labour the value of a person in capitalist terms tends towards zero; pure capitalism has no notion of humanity or basic human worth, just of humans as resources. The benefits of progress would need to be democratised, which is basically some form of communism - which countries like USA and UK have been ably brainwashed in to thinking is the devil and harmful to ordinary workers.

chii 9y ago

> The world moves this way. If you don't adapt you're out. while that's true, this statement hids an assumption that a priviledged person implicitly has that they might not even realize. The really poor do not have an opportunity to adapt, because their existing, extenuating circumstances means they are fighting for mere survival in the short term, and cannot expend any energy/resources to adapt for the longer term. Think education - anyone who's earning minimum wage will be hardpressed to adapt by re-educating. Without the help of a third-party (whether gov't or charity), they cannot but continue to just survive on their minimum wage, and then one day, get pushed out of even that job.

int0x80 9y ago
Yes, I agree. That is a problem. But that is not a new problem. That has nothing to do with technology. In today's world and 100 years ago, there are lots of poor and miserable people. Wars, corruption, explotation. Africa, Asia, South America etc. If you have a crappy life today because you live in Somalia, 50 years on you will still be fucked and not because of technology. That is a higher level problem. A sociologial/political one. It is a very complex problem that has always been there. I would even argue that technology and globalization gives this helpless people more opportinities. This days, for a stupid example, you can have a youtube channel/whatever and given the free resources online you can produce content and have a chance at making some money that wasn't posible 15 years ago. The entry barrier is much lower. E: The same goes for studing. 20/30 years ago, the best case scenario was studing a degree in a US university with a good status and all. If you couldn't, your best chance was getting a degree in whatever university was near you. If you still couldn't do that, you where out of luck. Now? It's still better to go to MIT if you're lucky. But if you can't you have a chance of learning on your own with the internet. And people are doing that. It won't be the same, but is much better than nothing. Of course, there are still people that can't do that because they don't even have electric network (see the recent news about the teacher in Africa using a blackboard to teach MSoffice for example). Again, that is a much deeper problem.
- ehnto 9y ago
  I think you didn't address his point. It doesn't matter how low the bar for entry is if you are working two jobs just to scrape together some ramen. The cognitive load of stress makes it extremely hard to tackle these kinds of personal growth tasks even if you can find a sliver of time to do it. Their point I think was that without a helping hand, for example a way to not have to work two jobs but perhaps just the one, then you have the time and cognitive capacity to explore personal growth. Also they seemed to be speaking directly about America, so while poverty in Africa is an issue, saying "man look how bad Africa is" is just avoiding addressing the issue at hand.
  - int0x80 9y ago
    Yes, I see what you mean. In cases of extreme poverty, everything is complicated. The problem is there wether we change/evolve the productive model or not. The problem is there right now and it was there 50 years ago, 100 years ago and so on. If you take away their low qualification "jobs" because of technology, new low qualification jobs will arise. They will be at the same position at least but chances are they will improve their life quality. That is what I think at least. Do you think that avances in technology an automation will make the life of this people worse? Will progress make this people's life more miserable? Will progress make the rich/poor people gap bigger? What is the _root_ of this problem? Are companys investing, making research and developing technology guilty or responsible of this? Do we have to make them responsible of this (ie, make them pay) ? Some may see this different, maybe we should instead pay and encourage/incentivize this companies for their work?
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      >Will progress make the rich/poor people gap bigger? What is the _root_ of this problem? // Absolutely. The root is capitalism puts much of the reward for workers labour in the hands of the already rich owners - with an excess of labour the value of a person in capitalist terms tends towards zero; pure capitalism has no notion of humanity or basic human worth, just of humans as resources. The benefits of progress would need to be democratised, which is basically some form of communism - which countries like USA and UK have been ably brainwashed in to thinking is the devil and harmful to ordinary workers.