4 ms·

"Why this time?" Why not this time? Arguing from historical trends is a weak form of argument, especially when we are discussing something as complicated as the

"Why this time?" Why not this time? Arguing from historical trends is a weak form of argument, especially when we are discussing something as complicated as the human economy (humans are complicated enough, it's hard to say much for certain about their economy). Anyway there's data suggesting this transformation is already happening: http://www.bing.com/search?q=median+wages+adjusted+for+inflation http://www.bing.com/search?q=median+wages+adjusted+for+infla... I'm tentatively in favor of this change – I don't see how having efficient, intelligent, cheap means of production can hurt human civilization in the long run, so long as we can work out resource allocation challenges.

jjmaxwell4 15y ago
>arguing from historical trends is a weak form of argument. Not really, since this exact argument was previously made in the 1800's by textile workers. We can learn from that for sure. Humans are very complicated, but it is reasonable to say that we are fundamentally not much more complicated then we were in 1800.
- astrofinch 15y ago
  It's true that in the 1800s, other jobs appeared for displaced textile workers. It's not obvious that the conditions that caused those jobs to appear will persist indefinitely. Historical trends continue except when they don't. Housing prices are a great example.