I wrote that comment when I was drunk, so let me try to clarify. I don't mean we value human life less in the way that a woke 14 year old means that, which is

I wrote that comment when I was drunk, so let me try to clarify. I don't mean we value human life less in the way that a woke 14 year old means that, which is the way you seem to have interpreted it. I mean it in the sense of market value. Technology and market efficiency are leading to your average person being less valuable to other people, and fewer people being substantially more valuable. Maybe one farmer can now feed 100,000 people. The 999 people it used to take to feed those 100,000 people are actually less valuable to society than they were prior to the technological and market advances that allowed that one person to feed 100,000 people. Sure they can get different jobs, and new jobs are created, but there is no guarantee that this happens according to any functional ratio; it's certainly not 1:1. This is essentially why wages are stagnating. Most people are actually worth less to society than they used to be. And again, I don't mean that in the woke sense, I mean it in the market sense. I mean that wages are accurately reflecting their true market value, and that value is less and less as time goes on. I think that the minimum barrier to entry in order to produce market value is constantly rising, and is basically happening on the basis of something like IQ. Maybe the next century will be characterized by more jobs like software and hardware engineers, while even those jobs will change and eventually be done by fewer and fewer people, but the point is that not everyone will actually be able to do those jobs. If nurses and doctors and PAs are phased out in favor of diagnostic algorithms and service utilities, for example, that doesn't mean that those millions of roles will have millions of new roles created in order to service the technology. And more importantly, the new roles to service the technology might actually require capabilities that most of those people are not actually capable of. I'm not making a statement about society being some way and it should be some other way. I'm saying that our societies are fundamentally predicated on the notion that stability can be achieved simply due to the idea that people provide relative value to one another. This idea is what has allowed liberal democracies to function with minimal authoritarian influence. That most people are capable of providing sufficient utility to one another such that, left to their own devices, they are able to secure resources for themselves by providing utility to others. This is less true now than it was, and will continue to be less true as time goes on. All I'm saying is that we're approaching a hinge point where we have to grapple with this reality.