4 ms·

> Unintelligent capital is so productive that most people were forced out of all known jobs in the 1800s. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it soun

by lapcat 3y ago

> Unintelligent capital is so productive that most people were forced out of all known jobs in the 1800s. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds totally false.

roenxi 3y ago
Yeah that was probably poorly articulated. Put it this way - everyone used to be a farmer. Capitalism happened, now the number of farmers in capitalist economies rounds to 0. There was no need for intelligent robots to do that. AI is likely to have a similar effect on some knowledge workers. At this point, arguably, very few people need to work. They persist regardless, and we are better off for it, but maybe growth in robotics and AI will some day force people to stop. And that would be a good outcome. Even now, if people don't need to work that is arguably for the best. The only concern I have is government policy encouraging productive people not to exert themselves. Either way, identifying people who are highly productive but not working and making them waste their time is stupid. We should want less people to need to work.
- lapcat 3y ago
  Capitalism happened, now the number of farmers in capitalist economies rounds to 0. No it doesn't. There are 2 million farms in the United States, and they don't just take care of themselves. Moreover, besides the farmers themselves, there are many people working in farming-related jobs, e.g., manufacturing farm equipment. Not to mention, how do you think the food gets from the farms to your table? The trucks don't just drive themselves yet. > At this point, arguably, very few people need to work. That's ridiculous. Ruthless capitalists would have gotten rid of employees already if they could.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > No it doesn't. There are 2 million farms in the United States, and they don't just take care of themselves. I'm not abreast of the stats for the US, but it would appear those 2 million farms employ order of magnitude 2 million farmers [0]. Which averages 1 farmer per farm, and while that seems a bit low it isn't inconceivable to me when considering the productivity of farmers in this day and age. The population of the US is 333 million people. Factor in geography, there may well be people who have literally never talked to a farmer in person. There are not a lot of farmers out there, the industry has been eaten by capital. That leaves around 99% of the population that may literally does not need to work to sustain a lifestyle that would be considered typical through most of human history. No intelligent robots required. > The trucks don't just drive themselves yet. They do drive themselves. Eg, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-19/autonomous-trucks-hit-the-road-carrying-watermelons/100218538 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-19/autonomous-trucks-hit... > Ruthless capitalists would have gotten rid of employees already if they could. They have. Industries have been all but wiped out for employees by capitalists. The only thing keeping people employed is they refuse to be satisfied with what they have and keep finding new jobs. Although if they were a bit more savvy they'd invest in capital and stop wasting time working. Capital wins when it comes down to it. This insistence that people should put the foundation of their lifestyle on work instead of capital accumulation is a habit that is sorta silly. The expectation should be that the average person owns capital and policies should be aimed at enabling that. Forcing successful capitalists to work is the opposite of clever. [0] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor#size https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor#size
    - lapcat 3y ago
      If you think 2 million is approximately 0, you should look at the stats from other professions. For example, there are actually more farmers than physicians. This "conversation" is becoming ridiculous. Do you think we need no physicians? No nurses? No dentists? No hair stylists? No home builders? No plumbers? No chefs? I could go on and on and on, but I actually don't want to go on and on and on with you. No TEACHERS. No librarians. No electricians. No sanitation workers. No engineers. No mail carriers. No maintenance or repair people. No sales people. No cashiers. No snow plowers. No architects. No SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS. No journalists. No writers. No actors. No musicians. No police. No lawyers. No airline pilots. How in the world do you think the world works without people? Perhpas you're putting a lot into "sustain a lifestyle that would be considered typical through most of human history", but why would we want to roll back the clock and live like it's the Dark Ages?

by lapcat 3y ago

> Unintelligent capital is so productive that most people were forced out of all known jobs in the 1800s. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds totally false.

roenxi 3y ago

Yeah that was probably poorly articulated. Put it this way - everyone used to be a farmer. Capitalism happened, now the number of farmers in capitalist economies rounds to 0. There was no need for intelligent robots to do that. AI is likely to have a similar effect on some knowledge workers. At this point, arguably, very few people need to work. They persist regardless, and we are better off for it, but maybe growth in robotics and AI will some day force people to stop. And that would be a good outcome. Even now, if people don't need to work that is arguably for the best. The only concern I have is government policy encouraging productive people not to exert themselves. Either way, identifying people who are highly productive but not working and making them waste their time is stupid. We should want less people to need to work.

lapcat 3y ago
Capitalism happened, now the number of farmers in capitalist economies rounds to 0. No it doesn't. There are 2 million farms in the United States, and they don't just take care of themselves. Moreover, besides the farmers themselves, there are many people working in farming-related jobs, e.g., manufacturing farm equipment. Not to mention, how do you think the food gets from the farms to your table? The trucks don't just drive themselves yet. > At this point, arguably, very few people need to work. That's ridiculous. Ruthless capitalists would have gotten rid of employees already if they could.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- roenxi 3y ago
  > No it doesn't. There are 2 million farms in the United States, and they don't just take care of themselves. I'm not abreast of the stats for the US, but it would appear those 2 million farms employ order of magnitude 2 million farmers [0]. Which averages 1 farmer per farm, and while that seems a bit low it isn't inconceivable to me when considering the productivity of farmers in this day and age. The population of the US is 333 million people. Factor in geography, there may well be people who have literally never talked to a farmer in person. There are not a lot of farmers out there, the industry has been eaten by capital. That leaves around 99% of the population that may literally does not need to work to sustain a lifestyle that would be considered typical through most of human history. No intelligent robots required. > The trucks don't just drive themselves yet. They do drive themselves. Eg, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-19/autonomous-trucks-hit-the-road-carrying-watermelons/100218538 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-19/autonomous-trucks-hit... > Ruthless capitalists would have gotten rid of employees already if they could. They have. Industries have been all but wiped out for employees by capitalists. The only thing keeping people employed is they refuse to be satisfied with what they have and keep finding new jobs. Although if they were a bit more savvy they'd invest in capital and stop wasting time working. Capital wins when it comes down to it. This insistence that people should put the foundation of their lifestyle on work instead of capital accumulation is a habit that is sorta silly. The expectation should be that the average person owns capital and policies should be aimed at enabling that. Forcing successful capitalists to work is the opposite of clever. [0] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor#size https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor#size
  - lapcat 3y ago
    If you think 2 million is approximately 0, you should look at the stats from other professions. For example, there are actually more farmers than physicians. This "conversation" is becoming ridiculous. Do you think we need no physicians? No nurses? No dentists? No hair stylists? No home builders? No plumbers? No chefs? I could go on and on and on, but I actually don't want to go on and on and on with you. No TEACHERS. No librarians. No electricians. No sanitation workers. No engineers. No mail carriers. No maintenance or repair people. No sales people. No cashiers. No snow plowers. No architects. No SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS. No journalists. No writers. No actors. No musicians. No police. No lawyers. No airline pilots. How in the world do you think the world works without people? Perhpas you're putting a lot into "sustain a lifestyle that would be considered typical through most of human history", but why would we want to roll back the clock and live like it's the Dark Ages?