3 ms·
I agree with your thrust but one caveat: "despite cars horses are still around" This is an absolutely terrible argument, because the population and societal u
by SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I agree with your thrust but one caveat:
"despite cars horses are still around"
This is an absolutely terrible argument, because the population and societal use of horses have been greatly reduced once the automobile came into play. If we were to transfer this with people, this means that once automation comes into the play, the vast majority of working humans will be culled and those remaining are only luxury/recreational items...
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoOk, fair enough, but read the larger context though. The people who had equestrian professions didn’t die. And there weren’t a mass of people displaced as refugees as the car became popular. It just created different jobs. Things that weren’t possible or didn’t exist before cars. It’s the same thing with “automation”. People like to pretend that one day soon everything will just be straight up replaced with robots overnight and we just won’t know what to do with ourselves. Not only isn’t that the case, it ignores the history of disruptive technology for the last 10,000 years. The root of the argument is made much better with overpopulation. But developed countries can’t be made to subsidize that - make the argument automation and maybe you can convince some people to believe in socialism.
- SolaceQuantum 7y agoActually from what I understand automation did displace certain specialty professions, such as weavers, and those people displaced generally had to take Shittier jobs or start from square one again in a new profession. That is to say, assuming there will not be upheaval as certain careers are completely ravaged is ahistorical.