4 ms·

> if they aren't picking, what are these people doing, and whats the wider cost? This idea needs to die so fast. It's an incredible psychosis that people fear

> if they aren't picking, what are these people doing, and whats the wider cost? This idea needs to die so fast. It's an incredible psychosis that people fear the utopia that is automation. Imagine telling people 1000 years ago that everything around them will be done by robots, but that the people of the future would fight it. Psychologists are going to study this for generations. It's also pretty offensive. The only reason you (or I) are not picking the fruit is because we were born somewhere else. No one deserves to do that. Especially if we know how to avoid it. What kind of sick fuck would subject someone to that just because they had fewer options. What else can they do? Perhaps help fulfill humans' literally infinite wants? What about nothing? I would much prefer nothing than forced unnecessary labor.

ajmurmann 7y ago
It's obviously because of the way our economy is set up. One possible outcome of more automation could be higher standard of living while doing less work for everybody. Another possible outcome is a large part of the population being unemployed or underemployed, without health care and trouble to keep housing and even put food on the table, while a small portion of the population that owns the robots lives in luxury. Which of the two alternatives seems right now more realistic? We can't even agree on basic income guarantee which obviously is a necessary step to move towards the desirable of the two scenarios. It's understandable because that clearly would be "communism" and that's always bad and we cannot have that as god fearing, compassionate Americans.
- thinkloop 7y ago
  Jobs are useless vestiges of the past. There is nothing honorable about jobs and no one cares about them. By their very definition they are things we don't want to do but have to for survival. This is all industrial work-centric brainwashing. If we can get survival without jobs that would be a great win for human kind. > Another possible outcome is a large part of the population being unemployed or underemployed, without health care and trouble to keep housing and even put food on the table, while a small portion of the population that owns the robots lives in luxury The whole point is that robots can make everything including more robots etc. We are talking of a world without scarcity. Why wouldn't everyone have health care? It would be virtually free. Everyone will have 10 or 20 robots. Who cares if someone has 40 or 100. Now that labor is solved people can focus on the fulfilling, interesting, human work of creating and inventing. The only job available will be to configure robots in interesting arrangements to make cooler stuff. But since we have so much stuff already, only a few people will do that as a hobby, for free, other people will make art or entertain or raise families or do nothing. Existence is inherently meaningless and filling time with worthless labor is only a distraction. That's the real issue to solve. > It's understandable because that clearly would be "communism" and that's always bad This is also brainwashing, communism is by no means "always bad", it just so happened that economies are too complex to centrally plan and that distributed computing through free individuals (aka capitalism) works better. But if, for example, computation got strong enough, it could potentially be more effecient to holistically and centrally plan an economy. Or in the case of automation, perhaps in a world of plenty, communism becomes the perfect system. I'm not advocating for communism, and I would never want it to encroach on freedoms, but these two cases are viable candidates for success.
  - stevenhuang 7y ago
    You and GP likely agree on the same points, but are talking past one another concerning time scale. Their concern is if we automate the pickers of their jobs, what is their immediate recourse? Waiting years for society to establish a better safety net is not an option. One can retrain, but options are limited, and will be more so with greater automation. The point is to be more mindful of the immediate effects of displaced labour due to automation. Is it a net social/economic gain to have prices slashed by say 10%, while at the same time seemingly externalizing both the social and economic costs of those who lost their jobs? It makes sense to ask these questions to ensure such a paradigm shift goes smoothly for those affected by minimizing undue hardship.
    - thinkloop 7y ago
      I agree with this. The transition will be tricky and potentially long. It needs to be managed. And you're right that GP was hinting at that stuff too, but I saw a little bit of the misguided mainstream talking-points creeping in that I felt I needed to address.
  - ajmurmann 7y ago
    I'm totally with you. You were calling the mainstream reaction a "incredible psychosis", which it is not. It's rational on in individual level given the current economic system and general attitudes especially in the US. If it was up to me we'd get UBI ASAP and as automation makes work more and more obsolete get closer and closer to communism. I think this also is desirable because it will allow us to follow our natural instincts and contribute to the commons rather than try to put them on our individual balance sheets at the expense of everyone else. (See this great discussion: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/future-thinkers-podcast/id820806390?mt=2&i=1000381077991 https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/future-thinkers-podcast/...)
- imtringued 7y ago
  I don't get it. You're saying the incompetent government's fiscal policy is unable to handle the growing inequality and therefore instead of fixing the government we should just ban robots? Seriously... Nowadays I think the biggest problem developed countries face is the opposition to progress because they are already happy with what they have and any improvement becomes an "us vs them" scenario where the new thing is demonized.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > instead of fixing the government we should just ban robots? I don't think it's "instead", but "until". > opposition to progress because they are already happy with what they have and any improvement becomes an "us vs them" scenario where the new thing is demonized. Find me a single worker who will say no when you tell them "you now own this robot, and can live from its output instead of working".
ggm 7y ago
Please don't reply like this, it's not helpful and its abusive. Nobody is a sick fuck here. Robots displacing workers is not a black and white story as a follow-up says, much less gratuitously
- thinkloop 7y ago
  It was a figurative "sick fuck" not an insult to op, although I see now how it could look that way.
true_religion 7y ago
Even if we are in a robot Utopia, the benefits are not going to be passed down to illegal immigrants directly via a basic income. You still have to ask what will this group do instead because the option of "stay home" isn't always on the table.

ajmurmann 7y ago

It's obviously because of the way our economy is set up. One possible outcome of more automation could be higher standard of living while doing less work for everybody. Another possible outcome is a large part of the population being unemployed or underemployed, without health care and trouble to keep housing and even put food on the table, while a small portion of the population that owns the robots lives in luxury. Which of the two alternatives seems right now more realistic? We can't even agree on basic income guarantee which obviously is a necessary step to move towards the desirable of the two scenarios. It's understandable because that clearly would be "communism" and that's always bad and we cannot have that as god fearing, compassionate Americans.

thinkloop 7y ago
Jobs are useless vestiges of the past. There is nothing honorable about jobs and no one cares about them. By their very definition they are things we don't want to do but have to for survival. This is all industrial work-centric brainwashing. If we can get survival without jobs that would be a great win for human kind. > Another possible outcome is a large part of the population being unemployed or underemployed, without health care and trouble to keep housing and even put food on the table, while a small portion of the population that owns the robots lives in luxury The whole point is that robots can make everything including more robots etc. We are talking of a world without scarcity. Why wouldn't everyone have health care? It would be virtually free. Everyone will have 10 or 20 robots. Who cares if someone has 40 or 100. Now that labor is solved people can focus on the fulfilling, interesting, human work of creating and inventing. The only job available will be to configure robots in interesting arrangements to make cooler stuff. But since we have so much stuff already, only a few people will do that as a hobby, for free, other people will make art or entertain or raise families or do nothing. Existence is inherently meaningless and filling time with worthless labor is only a distraction. That's the real issue to solve. > It's understandable because that clearly would be "communism" and that's always bad This is also brainwashing, communism is by no means "always bad", it just so happened that economies are too complex to centrally plan and that distributed computing through free individuals (aka capitalism) works better. But if, for example, computation got strong enough, it could potentially be more effecient to holistically and centrally plan an economy. Or in the case of automation, perhaps in a world of plenty, communism becomes the perfect system. I'm not advocating for communism, and I would never want it to encroach on freedoms, but these two cases are viable candidates for success.
- stevenhuang 7y ago
  You and GP likely agree on the same points, but are talking past one another concerning time scale. Their concern is if we automate the pickers of their jobs, what is their immediate recourse? Waiting years for society to establish a better safety net is not an option. One can retrain, but options are limited, and will be more so with greater automation. The point is to be more mindful of the immediate effects of displaced labour due to automation. Is it a net social/economic gain to have prices slashed by say 10%, while at the same time seemingly externalizing both the social and economic costs of those who lost their jobs? It makes sense to ask these questions to ensure such a paradigm shift goes smoothly for those affected by minimizing undue hardship.
  - thinkloop 7y ago
    I agree with this. The transition will be tricky and potentially long. It needs to be managed. And you're right that GP was hinting at that stuff too, but I saw a little bit of the misguided mainstream talking-points creeping in that I felt I needed to address.
- ajmurmann 7y ago
  I'm totally with you. You were calling the mainstream reaction a "incredible psychosis", which it is not. It's rational on in individual level given the current economic system and general attitudes especially in the US. If it was up to me we'd get UBI ASAP and as automation makes work more and more obsolete get closer and closer to communism. I think this also is desirable because it will allow us to follow our natural instincts and contribute to the commons rather than try to put them on our individual balance sheets at the expense of everyone else. (See this great discussion: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/future-thinkers-podcast/id820806390?mt=2&i=1000381077991 https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/future-thinkers-podcast/...)
imtringued 7y ago
I don't get it. You're saying the incompetent government's fiscal policy is unable to handle the growing inequality and therefore instead of fixing the government we should just ban robots? Seriously... Nowadays I think the biggest problem developed countries face is the opposition to progress because they are already happy with what they have and any improvement becomes an "us vs them" scenario where the new thing is demonized.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > instead of fixing the government we should just ban robots? I don't think it's "instead", but "until". > opposition to progress because they are already happy with what they have and any improvement becomes an "us vs them" scenario where the new thing is demonized. Find me a single worker who will say no when you tell them "you now own this robot, and can live from its output instead of working".

ggm 7y ago

Please don't reply like this, it's not helpful and its abusive. Nobody is a sick fuck here. Robots displacing workers is not a black and white story as a follow-up says, much less gratuitously

thinkloop 7y ago
It was a figurative "sick fuck" not an insult to op, although I see now how it could look that way.

true_religion 7y ago

Even if we are in a robot Utopia, the benefits are not going to be passed down to illegal immigrants directly via a basic income. You still have to ask what will this group do instead because the option of "stay home" isn't always on the table.