3 ms·

The same as always, more "value", specialization and jobs created which means more money for the rich and less money for the poor.

carbocation 15y ago
Would you have leveled a similar criticism against farming during the agricultural revolution?
- starwed 15y ago
  Eh, it would actually be more reasonable in that context. Dipping into wikipedia for a quick quote: >The shift to agricultural food production supported a denser population, which in turn supported larger sedentary communities, the accumulation of goods and tools, and specialization in diverse forms of new labor. The development of larger societies led to the development of different means of decision making and to governmental organization. Food surpluses made possible the development of a social elite who were not otherwise engaged in agriculture, industry or commerce, but dominated their communities by other means and monopolized decision-making. (Dr Catbox's comment, though, was just kinda mindless reactionism and had nothing to do with the original question.)
SwellJoe 15y ago
Are you sure you're in the right place? If you believe making bigger levers for human minds is evil, this might not be the right community for you, since it's what most of us are trying to do on a daily basis.
- Tycho 15y ago
  I like the way you phrased that - levers for the human mind. Maybe when we talk about the fight against poverty and unemployment, we should talk about it in terms of the type of levers we are making. Like high-frequency trading is a lever that only very smart, very educated people can actually use. But all humans no matter their intelligence or education possess a flexibility that would let them be productive (beyond what can be achieved with automation), given the right levers.
  - danmaz74 15y ago
    High-frequency trading looks to me much more like a bug of the system - or at least a undesirable side effect - than a lever for the human mind. Most innovations, though, fall in the lever category :)

carbocation 15y ago

Would you have leveled a similar criticism against farming during the agricultural revolution?

starwed 15y ago
Eh, it would actually be more reasonable in that context. Dipping into wikipedia for a quick quote: >The shift to agricultural food production supported a denser population, which in turn supported larger sedentary communities, the accumulation of goods and tools, and specialization in diverse forms of new labor. The development of larger societies led to the development of different means of decision making and to governmental organization. Food surpluses made possible the development of a social elite who were not otherwise engaged in agriculture, industry or commerce, but dominated their communities by other means and monopolized decision-making. (Dr Catbox's comment, though, was just kinda mindless reactionism and had nothing to do with the original question.)

SwellJoe 15y ago

Are you sure you're in the right place? If you believe making bigger levers for human minds is evil, this might not be the right community for you, since it's what most of us are trying to do on a daily basis.

Tycho 15y ago
I like the way you phrased that - levers for the human mind. Maybe when we talk about the fight against poverty and unemployment, we should talk about it in terms of the type of levers we are making. Like high-frequency trading is a lever that only very smart, very educated people can actually use. But all humans no matter their intelligence or education possess a flexibility that would let them be productive (beyond what can be achieved with automation), given the right levers.
- danmaz74 15y ago
  High-frequency trading looks to me much more like a bug of the system - or at least a undesirable side effect - than a lever for the human mind. Most innovations, though, fall in the lever category :)