5 ms·
It's a problem either way. Innovation stalls, improvements take longer to materialize. Machines become obsolete but there's nothing to replace it yet. Fewer p
by JoeAltmaier 3y ago
It's a problem either way.
Innovation stalls, improvements take longer to materialize. Machines become obsolete but there's nothing to replace it yet.
Fewer people in fundamental roles is a risk, a danger to our economic chain. We could become quite vulnerable, even crash.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoWhat are you doing to help solve this problem?
- salawat 3y ago"What can one do in the face of a relatively shrinking population?" is the more interesting question to me. As someone whose managed a team before, there is a minimum population of people practically required to sustain a particular corpus of actionable information without suffering severe degradation in terms of said information's application. Once one ends up below that point; things tend to go the way "from scratch rediscovery required", until such time as the population of people capable of acting on it is restored. Whether that actually happens is a prioritization decision balancing against everything else that still has to be done.
- JoeAltmaier 3y agoHave three boys! All successful engineers. One even knows hardware and assembler!
- atmartins 3y agoI disagree. I think it's about pivot time, not having a warmed up stable of skilled workers just in case. Nature never optimizes for that and it shouldn't. We should lazy-load that skillset if and when it's necessary. We have writing to carry knowledge forward. Also, video and other media. People are smart and I'm sure a large cohort could be assembled with the right amount of money in fairly short order. As long as that's cheaper than keeping a battalion ready just in case, then I'd argue it's the "correct" way to approach it.