3 ms·

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

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.
- batista 14y ago
  >You are correct that humans may feel more charitable towards each other than towards horses. If History (and PETA) are any evidence, probably the opposite.

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.

batista 14y ago
>You are correct that humans may feel more charitable towards each other than towards horses. If History (and PETA) are any evidence, probably the opposite.