4 ms·

> In the 1930s America there was mass unemployment Sure, but these are temporary disruptions. Now it's true that the pace of change feels immensely faster than

> In the 1930s America there was mass unemployment Sure, but these are temporary disruptions. Now it's true that the pace of change feels immensely faster than ever before, and I believe that's an observable fact. But we adapt. The incentives to do so are, sometimes, life or death. When faced with that kind of situation, some small % will sink into depression, perhaps never to climb out. I'm sure that some online magazine (which surely used to be known for its print version, but is no longer...) will write an extremely long piece full of anecdotes about the plight of the artist whose livelihood was destroyed by the evil AI. But I assert that it will always be a tiny percentage of the whole, because the vast majority of people like to eat food and live in houses. Many of them will look at these new tools and make amazing new things. Many will go do other things. That's life, man.

mistrial9 4y ago
I had to think twice about this reply .. I believe that from a psychological, character development point of view, what you say is reasonable.. adjust to change and apply new skills in new ways. However, there are different "lenses" through which one might examine large topics, and one lense might be that of personal challenge, adjustment and endeavor; but another lense is closer to The Economist Magazine, where factual snippets of market behavior, participants and results are traded every day, every week, every year. Any college educated person ought to be able to say, there have been real, serious and long-standing economic changes where thousands and millions of capable, good-enough people, had serious, years-long hard times up to and including starvation, war, and abundant death. Those without personal experience of that, or a close relative or similar imprinting, may not really consider this real. I had to learn it from books myself based on where I grew up. Others reading these words, know it very well. Hand-craft preservation is a thing, I have heard.. so there is certainly a broad spectrum between "no more blacksmiths downtown" to "I send my print jobs via phone for pickup near the metro at an automated kiosk". It is said that nobody has a right to a job. However, The Economist Magazine exists for a reason, and things are not normal where I live.. Welcome to the New Not-Normal, as Jerry Brown said..
- halr9000 4y ago
  > I had to think twice about this reply Good :) > The Economist Magazine, where factual snippets I have nothing special for or against the mag, but I will point out that economists are famously known for disagreeing on huge things once you get beyond the law of supply and demand. Not every discipline of study has whole alternative schools of thought the way they do. Economists are closer to philosophists than most philosophists. I really love economics! But I have no illusions at all that they serve up one and only one version of the truth like physicists. :D > real, serious and long-standing economic changes Ok, 100's of counterpoints: https://www.humanprogress.org/datasets/ https://www.humanprogress.org/datasets/ (but check out the articles also, lots of great stuff on there.) > starvation, war, and abundant death Yeah, there's lots of that. Pre-panbdemic all the trends were in the right direction. This too shall pass. Things aren't that abnormal in my area, and it's getting even better daily.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    you link to a Cato Institute website "founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries." some of these people have funded climate denial on behalf of the Oil and Gas Industry Lobby.. they have the largest wealth in history to defend, at the cost of Climate Change.
- fao_ 4y ago
  > It is said that nobody has a right to a job. Arguably, that's basically directly saying that nobody has a right to life. You either ensure the basic resources necessary to live are free, or you want everyone to get a job. The alternative is saying - "some people die from lack of work, get over it".
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> But we adapt. The incentives to do so are, sometimes, life or death... > But I assert that it will always be a tiny percentage of the whole US/Uk life expectancy is falling, and more people are in precarious work than ever before. You can't just wish away these problens and pretend they don't exist
- halr9000 4y ago
  You are aware that disruption has been the human condition for 1000's of years, yes? Why do you posit that life expectancy will continue to fall? Not sure it's rational to expect an extended reversal of the trends which have been on the increase prior to the past 2 years. Look at the charts and the analyses. Precarious work? You may need to explain that one.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > You are aware that disruption has been the human condition for 1000's of years, yes? So what? Slavery and The Plague and Cancer was part of the human condition too. And its wrong - technological disruption only appreared recently. For ten thousand years my ancestors lived nomadic lives on the eurasian plains, their lives were disrupted when a gun and a steam engine were invented few hundred years ago.
    - danielbln 4y ago
      And now we don't die anymore because of simple infection or other preventable diseases. Many if not all of the things that keep us fed, warm and healthy today are only because we endured technological disruption.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        So which is it, 'human condition includes disruption, there is nothing wrong with human conditions and therefore there is nothing wrong with disruption or 'human condition sucks and the only way to fix it is with disruption'? Are you just making it up as you go along? Do you feel the need to justify disruption at any cost?

mistrial9 4y ago

I had to think twice about this reply .. I believe that from a psychological, character development point of view, what you say is reasonable.. adjust to change and apply new skills in new ways. However, there are different "lenses" through which one might examine large topics, and one lense might be that of personal challenge, adjustment and endeavor; but another lense is closer to The Economist Magazine, where factual snippets of market behavior, participants and results are traded every day, every week, every year. Any college educated person ought to be able to say, there have been real, serious and long-standing economic changes where thousands and millions of capable, good-enough people, had serious, years-long hard times up to and including starvation, war, and abundant death. Those without personal experience of that, or a close relative or similar imprinting, may not really consider this real. I had to learn it from books myself based on where I grew up. Others reading these words, know it very well. Hand-craft preservation is a thing, I have heard.. so there is certainly a broad spectrum between "no more blacksmiths downtown" to "I send my print jobs via phone for pickup near the metro at an automated kiosk". It is said that nobody has a right to a job. However, The Economist Magazine exists for a reason, and things are not normal where I live.. Welcome to the New Not-Normal, as Jerry Brown said..

halr9000 4y ago
> I had to think twice about this reply Good :) > The Economist Magazine, where factual snippets I have nothing special for or against the mag, but I will point out that economists are famously known for disagreeing on huge things once you get beyond the law of supply and demand. Not every discipline of study has whole alternative schools of thought the way they do. Economists are closer to philosophists than most philosophists. I really love economics! But I have no illusions at all that they serve up one and only one version of the truth like physicists. :D > real, serious and long-standing economic changes Ok, 100's of counterpoints: https://www.humanprogress.org/datasets/ https://www.humanprogress.org/datasets/ (but check out the articles also, lots of great stuff on there.) > starvation, war, and abundant death Yeah, there's lots of that. Pre-panbdemic all the trends were in the right direction. This too shall pass. Things aren't that abnormal in my area, and it's getting even better daily.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  you link to a Cato Institute website "founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries." some of these people have funded climate denial on behalf of the Oil and Gas Industry Lobby.. they have the largest wealth in history to defend, at the cost of Climate Change.
fao_ 4y ago
> It is said that nobody has a right to a job. Arguably, that's basically directly saying that nobody has a right to life. You either ensure the basic resources necessary to live are free, or you want everyone to get a job. The alternative is saying - "some people die from lack of work, get over it".

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> But we adapt. The incentives to do so are, sometimes, life or death... > But I assert that it will always be a tiny percentage of the whole US/Uk life expectancy is falling, and more people are in precarious work than ever before. You can't just wish away these problens and pretend they don't exist

halr9000 4y ago
You are aware that disruption has been the human condition for 1000's of years, yes? Why do you posit that life expectancy will continue to fall? Not sure it's rational to expect an extended reversal of the trends which have been on the increase prior to the past 2 years. Look at the charts and the analyses. Precarious work? You may need to explain that one.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > You are aware that disruption has been the human condition for 1000's of years, yes? So what? Slavery and The Plague and Cancer was part of the human condition too. And its wrong - technological disruption only appreared recently. For ten thousand years my ancestors lived nomadic lives on the eurasian plains, their lives were disrupted when a gun and a steam engine were invented few hundred years ago.
  - danielbln 4y ago
    And now we don't die anymore because of simple infection or other preventable diseases. Many if not all of the things that keep us fed, warm and healthy today are only because we endured technological disruption.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      So which is it, 'human condition includes disruption, there is nothing wrong with human conditions and therefore there is nothing wrong with disruption or 'human condition sucks and the only way to fix it is with disruption'? Are you just making it up as you go along? Do you feel the need to justify disruption at any cost?