4 ms·

Replacing human labor with technology is usually a wonderful thing if the gains are generally realized. It means less time spent in 'toil' and more time to purs

by api 2y ago

Replacing human labor with technology is usually a wonderful thing if the gains are generally realized. It means less time spent in 'toil' and more time to pursue one's true interests and desires. The reason it feels depressing is that if recent history is any guide, 0.0001% of the human race will receive almost all the benefit. A tiny number of richer-than-rich will get even richer and everyone else will stay the same or get poorer.

elzbardico 2y ago
The rest (and most of us will see included on the rest category) will get soylent, if we are lucky.
decGetAc 2y ago
Agreed,only the super rich will get cars err electricity err I mean refrigerators err I mean personal computers err I mean mobile devices To be fair I think there's a lot of truth in your statement in the short term (and arguably in the long). But in the 'long' term , it sure does look like revolutionary technology makes everyday peoples life better (I didn't even go into transportation or health care/life expectency)
- exe34 2y ago
  How will you pay for the cars err electricity err I mean refrigerators err I mean personal computers err I mean mobile devices when you have no income?
- jajko 2y ago
  There will be soon new type of stuff only for rich - clean air, safe healthy food, beautiful nature, stable climate location, safe from warfare... we are not heading for a rosy future. Sure everybody can be addicted to some crappy social service on their phones, but that's not a mark of progress in 2025 nor definition of life fulfillment/happiness, some would say in contrary. Obesity was also for a long time mark of wealth (and in some 3rd world countries it still is), and now its a sign of low social status and failure for various reasons. Btw life expectancy i starting to decline again in developed countries, its just 3rd world that has so much gap to cross that they still go up.
- api 2y ago
  When I said recent history I meant the last roughly 20 years, when the trend has been for gains to go to a smaller and smaller number of people. Of course historically this does seem to be a cycle. Usually it goes gilded age, revolution, broad-based growth, emergence of a new elite, repeat cycle. Unfortunately the revolution period is often very chaotic and destructive.
- gruntbuggly 2y ago
  Sure, we have more consumer goods available to us, but I don’t know if that’s a great measure of a better life. We have supercomputers in our pockets but can’t talk to our neighbors, AI with a warming planet, etc. It’s all tradeoffs. A flourishing human life is independent of technology.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Let's be careful not to conflate (A) general technological-progress with (B) changes in economic organization and wealth distribution. The nice things from (A) don't necessarily require what co-occurred with (B). There is nothing in the physics or materials of a refrigerator which requires the assembler to have been paid less than the CEO.
- abenga 2y ago
  It is possible for luxuries to become easier to have, but still have entire generations unable to buy homes or retire.
eikenberry 2y ago
Recent history is a poor guide that will give you a highly skewed view and won't really help you anticipate and plan for the future. You need to look at real history to get perspective. You don't even have to go back very far to see an tiny group of richer-than-rich people that didn't retain their power, an economic loop where this all happened before.
- kingkongjaffa 2y ago
  > Recent history is a poor guide Wrong, It’s the most important prior. Technology is vastly different now since your supposed “last time”, to the point where it’s an entirely different landscape for events to unfold. Look at the state of mass apathy and lack of accountability we have in society now. That tiny group has never been more unaccountable.
signatoremo 2y ago
Can you be specific? Which technology only benefit the 0.0001%?
- api 2y ago
  I was referring to the economic benefits being concentrated. AI and other automation allows more to be done with less labor which increases corporate profits, and all that is pocketed by a very small number of people. Meanwhile everyone else is unemployed. There is no mechanism to distribute these benefits to anyone. The money goes to inflate stock and other financial bubbles and asset prices, including housing, which makes living even more unaffordable. Long term this eventually collapses since the economy doesn’t work with no customers.
treis 2y ago
Median income in constant dollars in the US was about 60k 40 years ago and now is about 80k. We can buy a lot better stuff with those dollars too.
- api 2y ago
  Now check housing prices over that time.
  - treis 2y ago
    People don't buy houses by writing checks for the purchase price. They get a mortgage and pay monthly which is dependent on both housing price and interest. With a lot of hand waving that number isn't much worse than the 70s/80s because interest rates were high then. However, that's cyclical and we're in a really crappy local minima for affordability due to a rapid increase in interest rates.

by api 2y ago

elzbardico 2y ago

The rest (and most of us will see included on the rest category) will get soylent, if we are lucky.

decGetAc 2y ago

Agreed,only the super rich will get cars err electricity err I mean refrigerators err I mean personal computers err I mean mobile devices To be fair I think there's a lot of truth in your statement in the short term (and arguably in the long). But in the 'long' term , it sure does look like revolutionary technology makes everyday peoples life better (I didn't even go into transportation or health care/life expectency)

exe34 2y ago
How will you pay for the cars err electricity err I mean refrigerators err I mean personal computers err I mean mobile devices when you have no income?
jajko 2y ago
There will be soon new type of stuff only for rich - clean air, safe healthy food, beautiful nature, stable climate location, safe from warfare... we are not heading for a rosy future. Sure everybody can be addicted to some crappy social service on their phones, but that's not a mark of progress in 2025 nor definition of life fulfillment/happiness, some would say in contrary. Obesity was also for a long time mark of wealth (and in some 3rd world countries it still is), and now its a sign of low social status and failure for various reasons. Btw life expectancy i starting to decline again in developed countries, its just 3rd world that has so much gap to cross that they still go up.
api 2y ago
When I said recent history I meant the last roughly 20 years, when the trend has been for gains to go to a smaller and smaller number of people. Of course historically this does seem to be a cycle. Usually it goes gilded age, revolution, broad-based growth, emergence of a new elite, repeat cycle. Unfortunately the revolution period is often very chaotic and destructive.
gruntbuggly 2y ago
Sure, we have more consumer goods available to us, but I don’t know if that’s a great measure of a better life. We have supercomputers in our pockets but can’t talk to our neighbors, AI with a warming planet, etc. It’s all tradeoffs. A flourishing human life is independent of technology.
Terr_ 2y ago
Let's be careful not to conflate (A) general technological-progress with (B) changes in economic organization and wealth distribution. The nice things from (A) don't necessarily require what co-occurred with (B). There is nothing in the physics or materials of a refrigerator which requires the assembler to have been paid less than the CEO.
abenga 2y ago
It is possible for luxuries to become easier to have, but still have entire generations unable to buy homes or retire.

eikenberry 2y ago

Recent history is a poor guide that will give you a highly skewed view and won't really help you anticipate and plan for the future. You need to look at real history to get perspective. You don't even have to go back very far to see an tiny group of richer-than-rich people that didn't retain their power, an economic loop where this all happened before.

kingkongjaffa 2y ago
> Recent history is a poor guide Wrong, It’s the most important prior. Technology is vastly different now since your supposed “last time”, to the point where it’s an entirely different landscape for events to unfold. Look at the state of mass apathy and lack of accountability we have in society now. That tiny group has never been more unaccountable.

signatoremo 2y ago

Can you be specific? Which technology only benefit the 0.0001%?

api 2y ago
I was referring to the economic benefits being concentrated. AI and other automation allows more to be done with less labor which increases corporate profits, and all that is pocketed by a very small number of people. Meanwhile everyone else is unemployed. There is no mechanism to distribute these benefits to anyone. The money goes to inflate stock and other financial bubbles and asset prices, including housing, which makes living even more unaffordable. Long term this eventually collapses since the economy doesn’t work with no customers.

treis 2y ago

Median income in constant dollars in the US was about 60k 40 years ago and now is about 80k. We can buy a lot better stuff with those dollars too.

api 2y ago
Now check housing prices over that time.
- treis 2y ago
  People don't buy houses by writing checks for the purchase price. They get a mortgage and pay monthly which is dependent on both housing price and interest. With a lot of hand waving that number isn't much worse than the 70s/80s because interest rates were high then. However, that's cyclical and we're in a really crappy local minima for affordability due to a rapid increase in interest rates.