4 ms·
As more labor was automated, these exact arguments were made. It was thought that no machine could capture the beauty and skill of human craftsmen as creation w
by Karrot_Kream 4y ago
As more labor was automated, these exact arguments were made. It was thought that no machine could capture the beauty and skill of human craftsmen as creation was a fundamentally human task. It was thought to be "sad" that low-effort, mass-produced, standardized goods would be "good enough" to satisfy human needs, that there was some inextricable timeless beauty to human output that elevates over machine output. Time has shown us that machine output has become even more precise and skillful than human labor. These arguments feel almost 1:1.
At times this whole thing feels hypocritical. Generations of laborers grew up with the reality that their work was essentially a commodity. Now that it's our turn, we raise the age old arguments again.
- trention 4y agoThose "generations of laborers" had the option to earn more for less (and less dangerous) work most of the time. It doesn't seem this will be the case now.
- Karrot_Kream 4y agoNot at all. The changes were sudden and extreme. Look at the original Luddite rebellion for its oldest incarnation, but just look at the mechanizing of factories in the 60s with the introduction of CNCs or protests against automation at ports. Automation of labor has been an ongoing force for decades and a reality laborers have had to live with for years.
- trention 4y agoThis is of course not true (for ports in particular the writing had been on the wall for more than a decade) but even if it were, there eventually were other jobs. There won't be this time around.