4 ms·

It sounds like you're implying there will always be waiter, organizer, dancer, and other service jobs with human elements that robots can't do. That seems reaso

It sounds like you're implying there will always be waiter, organizer, dancer, and other service jobs with human elements that robots can't do. That seems reasonable, but if there is a huge pool of people willing to do them, wouldn't the supply level depress the wages to below what we consider minimum wage? Unless we lower minimum wage, we'd have massive unemployment. And if we did, we'd have a very poor class of people. I have a more charitable view of the essay, I don't think he's claiming we should have a war on efficiency, I think he's claiming we need a new structure to our economy that works when you have a massive spread between the rich and poor. And I think he has a point, if we don't try to get ahead of the curve on this one we'll just end up with our current system with higher progressive taxes using that money on social programs, make-job programs, and bureaucratic jobs that will never go away for lack of budget pressure. edit: After thinking more, maybe the original author IS implying we should retard efficiency and not just create structural change that copes better. In that case, I think he's misguided.

oelewapperke 15y ago
I guess a better point could be made. 1) the American way : more efficient = better 2) technology will eventually build a better human The logical conclusion of the American way is the extinction of the human species. We've crossed the point where there is a significant fraction of human beings alive that cannot do anything more efficient than a machine can. That fraction is going up daily. Partially, this is the fault of the education system, where the quest for "equality" mostly operates by making smart people dumb, for the alternative is too hard. Only by choosing an absurdly low standard and forcibly lowering everyone to it can a decent measure of equality be attained it seems (if evolution is true, this is of course a very much expected outcome). But that, matters little, if at all. The "singularity" whose praises are sung on this site is the point where that fraction becomes 100%, and nobody has a job, save for political reasons. Those people will not lie down and die quietly. In fact, they won't even stop breeding. I'm very glad they do this. Frankly the main problem facing America is not China, not Russia, not islam, nor is it the super-rich "not doing their part", nor does it have all that much to do with wall street. All of the aforementioned are more than capable of destroying themselves, and all are at various stages of doing exactly that. The problem is simple : there is no need for humans at the base of our economy. The largest fraction of people gets hit first, and they will not go quietly. Frankly I understand the problem, and if it comes to that I will be more than happy to join the mobs that are coming for whoever makes a significant advancement towards the singularity, for one simple reason : I have kids. Anyone who disagrees with this problem, and sings the praises of "efficiency" can negotiate the way the base of the population has always negotiated. They can try to negotiate a pitchfork out of their throat. Most people don't realize this will happen, but unless something changes drastically ...

oelewapperke 15y ago

I guess a better point could be made. 1) the American way : more efficient = better 2) technology will eventually build a better human The logical conclusion of the American way is the extinction of the human species. We've crossed the point where there is a significant fraction of human beings alive that cannot do anything more efficient than a machine can. That fraction is going up daily. Partially, this is the fault of the education system, where the quest for "equality" mostly operates by making smart people dumb, for the alternative is too hard. Only by choosing an absurdly low standard and forcibly lowering everyone to it can a decent measure of equality be attained it seems (if evolution is true, this is of course a very much expected outcome). But that, matters little, if at all. The "singularity" whose praises are sung on this site is the point where that fraction becomes 100%, and nobody has a job, save for political reasons. Those people will not lie down and die quietly. In fact, they won't even stop breeding. I'm very glad they do this. Frankly the main problem facing America is not China, not Russia, not islam, nor is it the super-rich "not doing their part", nor does it have all that much to do with wall street. All of the aforementioned are more than capable of destroying themselves, and all are at various stages of doing exactly that. The problem is simple : there is no need for humans at the base of our economy. The largest fraction of people gets hit first, and they will not go quietly. Frankly I understand the problem, and if it comes to that I will be more than happy to join the mobs that are coming for whoever makes a significant advancement towards the singularity, for one simple reason : I have kids. Anyone who disagrees with this problem, and sings the praises of "efficiency" can negotiate the way the base of the population has always negotiated. They can try to negotiate a pitchfork out of their throat. Most people don't realize this will happen, but unless something changes drastically ...