5 ms·

When I was a kid I was naive (and still am, to a degree) and I thought that in the future machines/computers/automation would do what humans didn't want to or s

When I was a kid I was naive (and still am, to a degree) and I thought that in the future machines/computers/automation would do what humans didn't want to or simply couldn't, not to make a few people rich and bring more comfort to upper middle class, but so that humans worldwide could go after more important things that could make us evolve as a species.

wladimir 16y ago
Yes, I am also still a bit naive in that way. In the 80's-90's there was this common meme that automation would result in a more equal world where people could use their creative potential instead of doing repetitive jobs. However, with where we seem to be heading, I sometimes even feel bad for working in tech.
- endtime 16y ago
  I don't think that meme was wrong. I think the "wrong" part was the assumption that all people have significant creative potential. Remember, 50% of all people have a 2-digit IQ.
  - wladimir 16y ago
    What makes you think it is "wrong"? Simply because it isn't the case now? I believe it doesn't have to be this way. Who would have predicted large scale democracy before the French Revolution? Also, don't define "creative potential" as "high IQ". IQ is just an arbitrary measure which correlates with intelligence (and even that is controversial).
    - endtime 16y ago
      >What makes you think it is "wrong"? Simply because it isn't the case now? I think that is the standard definition, yes.
  - yardie 16y ago
    According to the way IQ is measured, 50% of all people will always have a 2-digit IQ. It moves with population and age. And once people get to a comfortable level of subsistence they do become more creative. The guys that build swamp buggies and monster trucks probably don't have IQs greater than anyone else, but there they are, hacking Ford F150s to drive through 6 feet of water.
    - endtime 16y ago
      I know how IQ is measured - that's why I felt comfortable making the statement. And of course 100 is not an absolute, fixed value. But, nevertheless, someone with a sub-100 IQ today is unlikely to use his newfound free time, if he's supplanted as high school janitor by a robot, to create wonderful works of art or technology.
      - yeahsure 16y ago
        So what if he can't create wonderful works of art or technology? Does that mean he's either a high school janitor or -if replaced by a robot- should just be a homeless? What if he hadn't become a janitor in the first place? What if he had spent all of his youth learning about anything that really makes him tick? I know - lots of "what if's" but that's exactly what I thought when I was a kid, we would get these kind of answers. Hope some day we can.
        endtime 16y ago
        That's a non sequitur. Look at what I was originally reply to: >In the 80's-90's there was this common meme that automation would result in a more equal world where people could use their creative potential instead of doing repetitive jobs.
tomjen3 16y ago
They will, but if people won't improve and aren't willing to take the jobs that are available, what are we going to do?
- grammaton 16y ago
  This assumes that moving to another career (because that's really what you're talking about here) is a frictionless process with no transaction costs. This is demonstratably not the case.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    No, that would help the process but the process doesn't have to be frictionless nor without transaction costs. It just takes a little longer to transition, but you should still be able to see the process in motion.
noonespecial 16y ago
It is kind of working out. People making minimum wage have things that were sci-fi when I was a kid, better than the most expensive attempts the rich made to try to buy their way in early back in the day. Global communicators that fit in the pocket, 40 inch high definition flat panel view screens, game systems with unimaginable processing power and graphics. Most people can't even sign up for basic cable without getting a time shifting miracle-machine or a basic cell phone account without being handed a damn tri-corder. No argument that inequality of wealth is growing rapidly, but its good to remember that total wealth is growing too and even the poorest are benefiting. What we really need to do is pull all of the parasites out of our health-care services and allow this magic to happen down there as well before the have-nots figure out it doesn't matter whats on your giant TV if you can't afford those patented, insurance inflated, heart pills and decide maybe its time once again to dust off the guillotines for another go at the rich.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  I remember a few months back seeing a homeless guy pushing a shopping cart with one hand and talking on a cell phone with the other. But I'm not sure if he thought everything was working out...
  - noonespecial 16y ago
    I did say kind of working out, not working out the way it should (for some definition of should I think we mostly agree on). I'm just saying that automation has made it possible for homeless guys to have cell phones, when before they couldn't. I'm not even floating a guess as to whether or not he'd be homeless if it not for that automation. That's a much larger and more complicated debate. On the balance, I'm still betting that more automation makes better lives for more people, even if it seems to increase inequality in the short run. I wait patiently for the day when mankind looks at himself in a collective mirror and says, "Know what?, everything's so good now that we don't need all of this inequality." I think this is an essential step in man becoming a semi-eternal space-faring species instead of one that just drives itself to extinction.
forkandwait 16y ago
I think is is sort of true, but the fact remains that humans really enjoy dominating other humans (probably biologically -- think chimpanzees). We currently dominate through economics, so there will always be a dynamic in which the wealthy need to the poor so that there can be a hierarchy. That isn't the only dynamic, but I think looking to technology (increased efficiency) to do ALL the work in solving human problems (domination) is, well, naive. Some of the work -- yes, and making it possible at all -- often.

wladimir 16y ago

Yes, I am also still a bit naive in that way. In the 80's-90's there was this common meme that automation would result in a more equal world where people could use their creative potential instead of doing repetitive jobs. However, with where we seem to be heading, I sometimes even feel bad for working in tech.

endtime 16y ago
I don't think that meme was wrong. I think the "wrong" part was the assumption that all people have significant creative potential. Remember, 50% of all people have a 2-digit IQ.
- wladimir 16y ago
  What makes you think it is "wrong"? Simply because it isn't the case now? I believe it doesn't have to be this way. Who would have predicted large scale democracy before the French Revolution? Also, don't define "creative potential" as "high IQ". IQ is just an arbitrary measure which correlates with intelligence (and even that is controversial).
  - endtime 16y ago
    >What makes you think it is "wrong"? Simply because it isn't the case now? I think that is the standard definition, yes.
- yardie 16y ago
  According to the way IQ is measured, 50% of all people will always have a 2-digit IQ. It moves with population and age. And once people get to a comfortable level of subsistence they do become more creative. The guys that build swamp buggies and monster trucks probably don't have IQs greater than anyone else, but there they are, hacking Ford F150s to drive through 6 feet of water.
  - endtime 16y ago
    I know how IQ is measured - that's why I felt comfortable making the statement. And of course 100 is not an absolute, fixed value. But, nevertheless, someone with a sub-100 IQ today is unlikely to use his newfound free time, if he's supplanted as high school janitor by a robot, to create wonderful works of art or technology.
    - yeahsure 16y ago
      So what if he can't create wonderful works of art or technology? Does that mean he's either a high school janitor or -if replaced by a robot- should just be a homeless? What if he hadn't become a janitor in the first place? What if he had spent all of his youth learning about anything that really makes him tick? I know - lots of "what if's" but that's exactly what I thought when I was a kid, we would get these kind of answers. Hope some day we can.
      - endtime 16y ago
        That's a non sequitur. Look at what I was originally reply to: >In the 80's-90's there was this common meme that automation would result in a more equal world where people could use their creative potential instead of doing repetitive jobs.

tomjen3 16y ago

They will, but if people won't improve and aren't willing to take the jobs that are available, what are we going to do?

grammaton 16y ago
This assumes that moving to another career (because that's really what you're talking about here) is a frictionless process with no transaction costs. This is demonstratably not the case.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  No, that would help the process but the process doesn't have to be frictionless nor without transaction costs. It just takes a little longer to transition, but you should still be able to see the process in motion.

noonespecial 16y ago

It is kind of working out. People making minimum wage have things that were sci-fi when I was a kid, better than the most expensive attempts the rich made to try to buy their way in early back in the day. Global communicators that fit in the pocket, 40 inch high definition flat panel view screens, game systems with unimaginable processing power and graphics. Most people can't even sign up for basic cable without getting a time shifting miracle-machine or a basic cell phone account without being handed a damn tri-corder. No argument that inequality of wealth is growing rapidly, but its good to remember that total wealth is growing too and even the poorest are benefiting. What we really need to do is pull all of the parasites out of our health-care services and allow this magic to happen down there as well before the have-nots figure out it doesn't matter whats on your giant TV if you can't afford those patented, insurance inflated, heart pills and decide maybe its time once again to dust off the guillotines for another go at the rich.

joe_the_user 16y ago
I remember a few months back seeing a homeless guy pushing a shopping cart with one hand and talking on a cell phone with the other. But I'm not sure if he thought everything was working out...
- noonespecial 16y ago
  I did say kind of working out, not working out the way it should (for some definition of should I think we mostly agree on). I'm just saying that automation has made it possible for homeless guys to have cell phones, when before they couldn't. I'm not even floating a guess as to whether or not he'd be homeless if it not for that automation. That's a much larger and more complicated debate. On the balance, I'm still betting that more automation makes better lives for more people, even if it seems to increase inequality in the short run. I wait patiently for the day when mankind looks at himself in a collective mirror and says, "Know what?, everything's so good now that we don't need all of this inequality." I think this is an essential step in man becoming a semi-eternal space-faring species instead of one that just drives itself to extinction.

forkandwait 16y ago

I think is is sort of true, but the fact remains that humans really enjoy dominating other humans (probably biologically -- think chimpanzees). We currently dominate through economics, so there will always be a dynamic in which the wealthy need to the poor so that there can be a hierarchy. That isn't the only dynamic, but I think looking to technology (increased efficiency) to do ALL the work in solving human problems (domination) is, well, naive. Some of the work -- yes, and making it possible at all -- often.