4 ms·

Is there an “ought” argument that deals with the “left behind” concept? Obviously there are tons of practical considerations to deal with, but in a theoretical

by Zetice 4y ago

Is there an “ought” argument that deals with the “left behind” concept? Obviously there are tons of practical considerations to deal with, but in a theoretical, general sense, is “left behind” a problem? Shouldn’t lifelong learning be a thing everyone is indeed capable of?

Riverheart 4y ago
In an ideal world but this one isn’t and even if it were the purpose of life is living not keeping up with a endless rat race of employability in a world that doesn’t know when to slow down. Leaving people behind is problematic because not everyone can keep up or has the time and means to do so. Should a single mother be expected to put in hours every week learning some crap on top of working and raising kids or can that person just breathe and deal with their other problems? Full time house parent that loses a spouse and has to start working. Someone in a low income house that can’t afford professional courses/books or even has access to a computer. You ever see those commercials about kids that can’t focus on school because they’re hungry? Yeah it’s not just them. When people are deprived of life essentials or dealing with personal problems studying is the last thing on their minds. Here we have people in tech burning themselves out and we want to export that mentality to everywhere else instead of seeing it as a problem.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  I saw an interview with Ray Kurzweil recently who is a huge driver and influencer of a lot of these changes towards AI everything. Ray is a trans humanist who believes we’re on the cusp of eternal life via the singularity. One of the things he is relying on is that people will keep up with technology through computer brain interfaces like Neural Link but faster. We should be seeing this come to market sometime around now. It’s not here so I guess that’s not good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykY69lSpDdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykY69lSpDdo Worth a watch…
  - klipt 4y ago
    > Ray is a trans humanist who believes we’re on the cusp of eternal life via the singularity. https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1968#comic https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1968#comi...
DoingIsLearning 4y ago
The challenge is not people's inability to learn new skills but employers unwillingness to accept the risk of hiring mid-life new-learners.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Zetice 4y ago
  This is an example of a practical concern that I'm not sure meshes with what we might presume is our shared philosophical underpinnings. Why is the burden placed on the employer to grow their employee and not the human being to grow themselves? In a generic sense, it could be outside of the purview of the employer to consider the employee's future in that specific way (in other ways it makes more sense, like health and happiness while employed). It seems oddly paternalistic, to me, and once you remove that moral presumption doesn't the conversation become more complex?
  - juvvel 4y ago
    Since companies do need workers and working is mandatory in our society, it seems weird to expect people to always be ready (and able) to mold themselves into whatever a company wants at the snap of a finger just so they're "allowed" to work in the first place.
    - Zetice 4y ago
      Ah but isn't "working is mandatory in our society" an "is" argument, not an "ought" argument? Ought jobs be mandatory in our society? That seems like a better question. Even if we did presume that jobs should be required in society, how would it even work for a job creator to preemptively know what skills were needed with enough time to ensure at your current job you were trained for future jobs? Why would that fall to your current employer?
      - juvvel 4y ago
        How is the individual going to know what to learn in advance? If anyone knows the requirements of companies, it's the companies themselves, no?
obmelvin 4y ago
There are certainly plenty of people with learning disabilities, etc. Yes, most of us will have to adapt throughout our life, but not everyone is as fortunate (possibly not the right word).
juvvel 4y ago
I literally addressed this in my comment.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Zetice 4y ago
  Do you believe I agree that you addressed “this” in your comment? Or would it be more likely that I implicitly categorized your comment as a practical argument, without really addressing the moral underpinnings in what you’re describing? For example you place the burden of “learning new things” at the feet of the employer, but you don’t really justify that. Why, in a general sense, can people not learn on the remaining hours of the day? Your comment is riddled with moral presumption and I think it’s worth figuring out what those are.
  - juvvel 4y ago
    And you seem to think it's every human's moral obligation to not only spend the majority of their waking hours at work, but also their free time on making themselves more valuable to corporations. And that's not a moral presumption? Where does that leave time for anything else in life?
    - Zetice 4y ago
      Why would learning something new take up all of one's free time?
      - juvvel 4y ago
        If you have the secret on how to work 40+ hours, stay healthy, on top of chores and social obligations, have at least a little time for your hobbies, get your 8 hours of sleep, and learn a new profession on the side, please do share. Most people are already fully booked with a fraction of these things.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
> The standard advice is to "always keep learning" but not every job will give you the opportunity to do so.
ncallaway 4y ago
Yes, we "ought" not let people starve, go without heating, or become homeless because their skills were obsoleted by automation. We "ought" to share the rewards and efficiencies of automation with the people that it displaces, rather than solely with the owners of capital.
flippinburgers 4y ago
Uncertain. How old are you to be so knowledgable about the challenges of learning when 40, 50, 60, 70 or beyond?

by Zetice 4y ago

Riverheart 4y ago

In an ideal world but this one isn’t and even if it were the purpose of life is living not keeping up with a endless rat race of employability in a world that doesn’t know when to slow down. Leaving people behind is problematic because not everyone can keep up or has the time and means to do so. Should a single mother be expected to put in hours every week learning some crap on top of working and raising kids or can that person just breathe and deal with their other problems? Full time house parent that loses a spouse and has to start working. Someone in a low income house that can’t afford professional courses/books or even has access to a computer. You ever see those commercials about kids that can’t focus on school because they’re hungry? Yeah it’s not just them. When people are deprived of life essentials or dealing with personal problems studying is the last thing on their minds. Here we have people in tech burning themselves out and we want to export that mentality to everywhere else instead of seeing it as a problem.

ChatGTP 4y ago
I saw an interview with Ray Kurzweil recently who is a huge driver and influencer of a lot of these changes towards AI everything. Ray is a trans humanist who believes we’re on the cusp of eternal life via the singularity. One of the things he is relying on is that people will keep up with technology through computer brain interfaces like Neural Link but faster. We should be seeing this come to market sometime around now. It’s not here so I guess that’s not good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykY69lSpDdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykY69lSpDdo Worth a watch…
- klipt 4y ago
  > Ray is a trans humanist who believes we’re on the cusp of eternal life via the singularity. https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1968#comic https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1968#comi...

DoingIsLearning 4y ago

The challenge is not people's inability to learn new skills but employers unwillingness to accept the risk of hiring mid-life new-learners.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Zetice 4y ago
This is an example of a practical concern that I'm not sure meshes with what we might presume is our shared philosophical underpinnings. Why is the burden placed on the employer to grow their employee and not the human being to grow themselves? In a generic sense, it could be outside of the purview of the employer to consider the employee's future in that specific way (in other ways it makes more sense, like health and happiness while employed). It seems oddly paternalistic, to me, and once you remove that moral presumption doesn't the conversation become more complex?
- juvvel 4y ago
  Since companies do need workers and working is mandatory in our society, it seems weird to expect people to always be ready (and able) to mold themselves into whatever a company wants at the snap of a finger just so they're "allowed" to work in the first place.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Ah but isn't "working is mandatory in our society" an "is" argument, not an "ought" argument? Ought jobs be mandatory in our society? That seems like a better question. Even if we did presume that jobs should be required in society, how would it even work for a job creator to preemptively know what skills were needed with enough time to ensure at your current job you were trained for future jobs? Why would that fall to your current employer?
    - juvvel 4y ago
      How is the individual going to know what to learn in advance? If anyone knows the requirements of companies, it's the companies themselves, no?

obmelvin 4y ago

There are certainly plenty of people with learning disabilities, etc. Yes, most of us will have to adapt throughout our life, but not everyone is as fortunate (possibly not the right word).

juvvel 4y ago

I literally addressed this in my comment.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Zetice 4y ago
Do you believe I agree that you addressed “this” in your comment? Or would it be more likely that I implicitly categorized your comment as a practical argument, without really addressing the moral underpinnings in what you’re describing? For example you place the burden of “learning new things” at the feet of the employer, but you don’t really justify that. Why, in a general sense, can people not learn on the remaining hours of the day? Your comment is riddled with moral presumption and I think it’s worth figuring out what those are.
- juvvel 4y ago
  And you seem to think it's every human's moral obligation to not only spend the majority of their waking hours at work, but also their free time on making themselves more valuable to corporations. And that's not a moral presumption? Where does that leave time for anything else in life?
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Why would learning something new take up all of one's free time?
    - juvvel 4y ago
      If you have the secret on how to work 40+ hours, stay healthy, on top of chores and social obligations, have at least a little time for your hobbies, get your 8 hours of sleep, and learn a new profession on the side, please do share. Most people are already fully booked with a fraction of these things.

xboxnolifes 4y ago

> The standard advice is to "always keep learning" but not every job will give you the opportunity to do so.

ncallaway 4y ago

Yes, we "ought" not let people starve, go without heating, or become homeless because their skills were obsoleted by automation. We "ought" to share the rewards and efficiencies of automation with the people that it displaces, rather than solely with the owners of capital.

flippinburgers 4y ago

Uncertain. How old are you to be so knowledgable about the challenges of learning when 40, 50, 60, 70 or beyond?