7 ms·

This kind of alarmism is both very old and economically ignorant. We have already experienced this scenario multiple times, and it always leaves us better off.

by ef4 14y ago

This kind of alarmism is both very old and economically ignorant. We have already experienced this scenario multiple times, and it always leaves us better off. Consider that 200 years ago almost everyone was in farming, and now it employs less than 2%, thanks to drastically higher productivity. We didn't all end up unemployed. We invented whole new things to work on. Most of us are doing things our ancestors would have thought were impossible or frivolous or just bizarre.

dbingham 14y ago
Actually, the farming trend is being reversed. We've realized that the compromises we have to make in order to produce enough to feed us with only 2% of the population results in food that is actually killing us and generating super pests. The trend is now headed back to more farmers working on smaller less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals. So don't base your argument on the example of farming.
- weavejester 14y ago
  Even if there's a (small) current trend in the opposite direction for farming, we're not going to go back to the level of productivity of the 1800s, or the 1900s, or even the 1950s. The overall trend over the past 200 years in farming has overwhelming toward increasing yield.
- narag 14y ago
  It doesn't seem fair to put all the blame on automatization. I've read here that high fructose corn syrup is suspect of contributing to obesity and some other diseases. But is automatization responsible or USA regulations and subsides? In general, I'd say that the main factor is that the change of having cheap and abundant food is not followed by a change in diet. It takes some pain and a couple generations (in the best case) to adapt.
  - eru 14y ago
    The saddest part of the high fructose corn syrup story is that that syrup is actually only cheaper than sugar in the US, because of subsidies and tariffs.
  - joshcrews 14y ago
    Automation is not the cause, but an increase in farmers per capita increases resistance to unhealthful or immoral food production practices (crowded, drugged, chemicalled animals; GMO crops, nutrient-depleted vegetables, corn-raised cattle, raw milk bans). More people getting into farming could really help turn around American food
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- vog 14y ago
  > less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals As far as I know, this is mostly about avoiding monocultures, about chemicals and about genetic manipulation. And maybe animal welfare. It never occured to me that this is about machines. Am I missing something?
  - dbingham 14y ago
    Most of the machines used on a farm have to do with harvesting, planting or spraying chemicals. They require plants to be planted in monocultures in straight clean rows in order to work. If you move away from chemicals and row based monoculture you can't really use most farm equipment anymore.
    - eru 14y ago
      But there will be an opportunity to use newer better machines / robots, that can cope with more complicated structures than monoculture.
jchrisa 14y ago
The idea that being less productive is a solution to the problem, is already to have given away the game to a set of concepts that stack the deck in favor of more of the same. We all know that the things that really matter cannot be measured (yes even indigenous subsistence farmers have free time and fun). If you want to rewire your ideas around this, you could do worse than start with this book (free online or print). So far it's blown every mind I've sent it to. http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-introduction/ http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-introduction/
yummyfajitas 14y ago
This line of reasoning is fallacious. See the following graph: http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/human_vs_machine_progress.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/human_vs_machine_prog... So far, we've invented whole new things to work on. There is no compelling reason to believe that will continue to happen. Incidentally, that scenario hasn't always left biological entities better off. When technology reduced the wages for travel below the level of horse subsistence, the result was massive deaths among horses. But humans are special, right? That can't ever happen to us.
- lincolnq 14y ago
  I get the argument, although the blog you linked to seems broken right now (the graph doesn't show the data that he claims it to show). I agree: at some point we'll run out of things to employ humans doing. The big question for society is, what will happen when we reach that point? The relevant evidence is that humans care much more about the continued existence of other humans, to a much stronger degree than they do (in general) about horses. I am trying this thought experiment: Imagine a human in a position to decide whether to spend a lot of money on saving their horse. Imagine the same human now facing the same choice for saving their neighbor. The arguments are quite different, and it feels morally wrong to apply the economic argument to humans.
  - georgemcbay 14y ago
    I think you're being a bit naive in assuming that when the massive and sustained unemployment (by today's definition) happens, wealthy people will be in a position to "save" their neighbors by throwing a few bucks their way. If we don't deal with this situation before it happens (and, IMO, this shift has already started though it'll be decades before it takes full shape) there will be bloody revolution to the point of societal collapse. Having a bank account with a lot of zeros in it won't count for much by then.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    The graph shows machines already overtook horses and will eventually overtake humans (even if it hasn't happened yet). No data is graphed, it's just a schematic diagram (as is evidenced by the lack of axis labels). You are correct that humans may feel more charitable towards each other than towards horses. But the point is that mass unemployment is likely to occur and this will be a completely new phenomenon. I.e., we can't look at the past to predict the future.
AznHisoka 14y ago
Yes, frivolous and bizzarre work... or surrogate activities as the Unabomber would put it.
rfugger 14y ago
I think the real question is whether we want to spend our time producing more goods and services for exchange, or whether we'd be happier with more leisure time.

by ef4 14y ago

dbingham 14y ago

Actually, the farming trend is being reversed. We've realized that the compromises we have to make in order to produce enough to feed us with only 2% of the population results in food that is actually killing us and generating super pests. The trend is now headed back to more farmers working on smaller less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals. So don't base your argument on the example of farming.

weavejester 14y ago
Even if there's a (small) current trend in the opposite direction for farming, we're not going to go back to the level of productivity of the 1800s, or the 1900s, or even the 1950s. The overall trend over the past 200 years in farming has overwhelming toward increasing yield.
narag 14y ago
It doesn't seem fair to put all the blame on automatization. I've read here that high fructose corn syrup is suspect of contributing to obesity and some other diseases. But is automatization responsible or USA regulations and subsides? In general, I'd say that the main factor is that the change of having cheap and abundant food is not followed by a change in diet. It takes some pain and a couple generations (in the best case) to adapt.
- eru 14y ago
  The saddest part of the high fructose corn syrup story is that that syrup is actually only cheaper than sugar in the US, because of subsidies and tariffs.
- joshcrews 14y ago
  Automation is not the cause, but an increase in farmers per capita increases resistance to unhealthful or immoral food production practices (crowded, drugged, chemicalled animals; GMO crops, nutrient-depleted vegetables, corn-raised cattle, raw milk bans). More people getting into farming could really help turn around American food
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
vog 14y ago
> less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals As far as I know, this is mostly about avoiding monocultures, about chemicals and about genetic manipulation. And maybe animal welfare. It never occured to me that this is about machines. Am I missing something?
- dbingham 14y ago
  Most of the machines used on a farm have to do with harvesting, planting or spraying chemicals. They require plants to be planted in monocultures in straight clean rows in order to work. If you move away from chemicals and row based monoculture you can't really use most farm equipment anymore.
  - eru 14y ago
    But there will be an opportunity to use newer better machines / robots, that can cope with more complicated structures than monoculture.

jchrisa 14y ago

The idea that being less productive is a solution to the problem, is already to have given away the game to a set of concepts that stack the deck in favor of more of the same. We all know that the things that really matter cannot be measured (yes even indigenous subsistence farmers have free time and fun). If you want to rewire your ideas around this, you could do worse than start with this book (free online or print). So far it's blown every mind I've sent it to. http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-introduction/ http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-introduction/

yummyfajitas 14y ago

This line of reasoning is fallacious. See the following graph: http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/human_vs_machine_progress.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/human_vs_machine_prog... So far, we've invented whole new things to work on. There is no compelling reason to believe that will continue to happen. Incidentally, that scenario hasn't always left biological entities better off. When technology reduced the wages for travel below the level of horse subsistence, the result was massive deaths among horses. But humans are special, right? That can't ever happen to us.

lincolnq 14y ago
I get the argument, although the blog you linked to seems broken right now (the graph doesn't show the data that he claims it to show). I agree: at some point we'll run out of things to employ humans doing. The big question for society is, what will happen when we reach that point? The relevant evidence is that humans care much more about the continued existence of other humans, to a much stronger degree than they do (in general) about horses. I am trying this thought experiment: Imagine a human in a position to decide whether to spend a lot of money on saving their horse. Imagine the same human now facing the same choice for saving their neighbor. The arguments are quite different, and it feels morally wrong to apply the economic argument to humans.
- georgemcbay 14y ago
  I think you're being a bit naive in assuming that when the massive and sustained unemployment (by today's definition) happens, wealthy people will be in a position to "save" their neighbors by throwing a few bucks their way. If we don't deal with this situation before it happens (and, IMO, this shift has already started though it'll be decades before it takes full shape) there will be bloody revolution to the point of societal collapse. Having a bank account with a lot of zeros in it won't count for much by then.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  The graph shows machines already overtook horses and will eventually overtake humans (even if it hasn't happened yet). No data is graphed, it's just a schematic diagram (as is evidenced by the lack of axis labels). You are correct that humans may feel more charitable towards each other than towards horses. But the point is that mass unemployment is likely to occur and this will be a completely new phenomenon. I.e., we can't look at the past to predict the future.

AznHisoka 14y ago

Yes, frivolous and bizzarre work... or surrogate activities as the Unabomber would put it.

rfugger 14y ago

I think the real question is whether we want to spend our time producing more goods and services for exchange, or whether we'd be happier with more leisure time.