3 ms·

So basically, machines doing your job for you is bad because a job is the only thing that is supposed to give your life meaning, and without that you won't be a

• Joker_vD 2y ago
  Well, do s/meaning/sustenance, and it's... not that inaccurate. Of course, there is also a fact that many kind of jobs exist, and that, empirically, machines eliminating some kinds of jobs generally lead to creation of new kinds of jobs (and increase of labour demand in the surviving kinds of jobs) so it's not as catastrophic as one might think.
  • cageface 2y ago
    That’s been true in the past but it’s not hard to make the argument that this time will be different and we just won’t need as many workers.
    • Joker_vD 2y ago
      Well, of course it's not hard to make such an argument because it has been made already multiple times throughout the modern history. So while it may very well be true, I am very sceptical about theoretical arguments on this topic: they've been consistently wrong so far.
• yulker 2y ago
  Another lens would be that labor is the primary way that the broader population has meaning to the concentrations of capital and power in an economy. Society is broadly structured to reflect this, whether that is ethical or not from the individual perspective. For those people on the labor providing side of the equation, machines replacing their labor is an existential threat.
• layer8 2y ago
  No, you want to spend as much of your lifetime as possible with meaningful and fulfilling activities, and that includes work.