3 ms·
Work automation even if linked to war automation is a slightly different beast with IMVHO not much a tech issue but a human one, while war automation is also a
by kkfx 5y ago
Work automation even if linked to war automation is a slightly different beast with IMVHO not much a tech issue but a human one, while war automation is also a tech issue alone: take for instance construction tools like elevators, excavators, hammers, drills, augers, ... yes they deeply cut the number of needed workers per construction site and hyper-slash construction time itself, BUT workers now have far less fatigue than before, so work automation is double edged, on one side help humans, on another might be weaponized against humans. The issue here is much in social terms: we are trained by most dictatorships that we live to work, with a purpose, we have to struggle to do something for a far future etc the refrain is the same from Chinese workers to Franklin idea of a cannon in every street to force people out of the bed earlier in the morning. That's make automation an issue because less work is needed so less workers are needed. However if we change mindset, we work to live, not the opposite and our target is arriving at a sufficiently automated point that we can just work for our own pleasure because work to live will not be needed anymore, than automation is not an issue: we work less, in a society not based on infinite growth, and live more still having all the products we need and like.
War automation is another game: war is a classic way cohort of humans act against other cohort to gain advantages, or just to survive, so war MUST be a human thing in the social sense, have war automated that means some parts of the society can ignore to a certain extent the war and so they might be more interesting in approving wars not just to survive but for mere advantage gain, witch is a very bad idea if we want evolve. If a war touch a whole society than the whole society think much before accepting war, is not they just can do like stadium fan inciting a team, sitting in comfy setups because war is just a show. In that case when things go bad no one can revolt, because automation makes those few who control and know it fully armed and the rest of the society powerless.
That's why for instance, as a pacifist, I do like the classic Swiss model: mandatory conscription 1 month per year for 18-28 years old with guerrilla training an weapons/ammo at home. That's the classic si vis pacem para bellum, or the perfect balance of power: a country organized like that is very protected against invasions but not much good at invading others, a small permanent army hold the big war gear and represent the State, while all Citizens are mostly armed and trained so if the State derail try to pushing from Democracy to dictatorship Citizens know very well and have all the means to ensure such a bad bloodbath for all party that no one want to try moving toward ad dictatorship. Giving weapons ONLY after proper training and evaluation ensure social safety. On contrary I fear society where very few control basic tech we need, especially if those few are private non public bodies. Just imaging what can happen in a modern city in case of a real unrest against an oppressive move:
- closing the city is normally easy, people inside in modern world have less and less private transport means and those are more and more connected and controllable by the OEM, not by the formal owner, so basically locking few roads suffice to lock down many many many humans;
- since water is pushed with few centralized networks typically coming from the outside of the city, so electricity etc is easy to disrupt any of those service;
- it's also easy to leave people starving since in a city all eat but essentially there is no food production, just a small transformation.
Essentially a prison. While in a Swiss like scenario, in a more spread country it's impossible to lock down peoples, they know how to revolt, they can do so, they have infra explicitly built for guerrilla (against exterior invaders, but that does not change much the game) and they are trained in their own territory.
Those are the main difference I see:
- automation is good as long as the society is in control, witch means for instance that research is public so anyone can know how to build any tool of use, there is no private oligarchy/monopoly on infra etc;
- automation is extremely dangerous if only few have&know it.
Witch can be summarized: if we are all almost on-par we are cooperative friend and casual litigates does not harm much the society, we there is a significant imbalance in power than we are doomed to end up really badly.
- pdfernhout 5y agoThanks for the interesting reply. Related to the Swiss model, how society controls levels of automation, and also resilience, you might like the sci-fi novel "Retrotopia" by John Michael Greer. It explores those issues from one perspective. Here is one chapter from the novel (more are on that blog if you don't want to buy the book): https://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-12-31/retrotopia-neglected-technologies/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-12-31/retrotopia-neg... "This is the twelfth installment of an exploration of some of the possible futures discussed on this blog, using the toolkit of narrative fiction. Our narrator attends the Lakeland Republic’s annual drone shoot, and finds out that not all technological innovations start out from the current state of the art..."
- kkfx 5y agoThank you for the insights :-) I'll read tomorrow! About the real world, ideally the society control the automation in a very simple manner: since the public (State) fund well public research most of the private sector just implement @the good/practical part of those public research, think about what happen in IT or pharma industry, Xerox research, AT&T research were formally private, but practically a public paid and public pushed research, GAFAM born out of it and after those big labs no more real evolution/revolution happen; similarly for pharma industry in USA there was (ok, still is but just for name) the NIH, others just produce drugs discovered and tested by them. In such model there is not much room to steer the society, the most advanced research born out of public bodies who work for public interests, private can't compete, they can obviously research for themselves, avoid building something they dislike etc but can't really steer. That's is. In laws term suffice ensuring an effective private-public separation forbidding the sliding door's mechanism and paying well enough, giving research facilities and freedom enough to discourage the jump toward the private sector. Once schools/uni are a public-almost-only show, research is mostly public the private sector is powerless. They can make good profits of course, but not against the public. If you observe the past in the end companies who have built and sold public research were very profitable and even with high taxation the sole who gain less than now were top management and private equity investors, all the others gains more and for good. If you analyze the history most advancement born out of public research or free research (old patronages), private research have given something to the history but small things not high tech, yes, most advancement are born out of military needs, but still, public needs. To arrive at this point we need culture, so we need a middle class wealthy enough to study and live to live and progress not just to amassing money like classic stereotypical parvenues. That's why wall street was always against the middle class and culture, they prefer Marxists other bourgeois for this very reason, in the end they know that even Marxism promise much but never give real power to the masses, witch is just another form of neoliberal capitalism, like the actual Chinese one, while a classic bourgeois society actually gives power to the masses, in a substantial Democracy because that's the sole form of organization that ensure to most people the best social protection and they can't just select by census much.