3 ms·
No no, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's FOR human safety...it's for profit. But the pushback on "losing jobs to machines" is less when the end-result i
by GabeWeiss_ 8y ago
No no, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's FOR human safety...it's for profit. But the pushback on "losing jobs to machines" is less when the end-result is replacing human jobs that have a high degree of danger associated with them. Which is why, throughout history as well, we've seen larger adoption of automation via machines in those areas. The friction to do that replacement is lower, so we see it more often.
- joe_the_user 8y agoBut the pushback on "losing jobs to machines" is less when the end-result is replacing human jobs that have a high degree of danger associated with them. Well, OK, except for the long history of industrial automation that doesn't bear this out at all. There has resistance to automation from the English Luddites to Detroit Black Workers Union and beyond and arguments that automation is only OK safety is involved have not entered the picture that entire period. Basically, there's never been a situation where public complaints stopped automation. It has proceeded as fast as technology allowed to the present. EP Thompson is the reference for early automation and the luddites but it's hard to give a reference for a negative. If you have any reference for situation where public sentiment limited automation, I'd love to see them. Because it sounds like you are mistakenly thinking the world actually works according to the vague headlines one see sees periodically.