3 ms·

> If you could accomplish your task without the busywork, why wouldn’t you? There's taking away the busywork such as hand washing every dish and instead using

> If you could accomplish your task without the busywork, why wouldn’t you? There's taking away the busywork such as hand washing every dish and instead using a dishwasher. Then there is this where, rather than have any dishes, a cadre of robots comes by and drops a morsel of food in your mouth for every bite you take.

throwaway13337 1y ago
Does your analogy mean that you'd like to stop someone from owning that cadre of robots? Or is this just a personal preference? You can have your dishwasher and I'll take the robots. And we can both be happy.
- clutchdude 1y ago
  And therein is the problem - if your robots take up so many resources I can't have my dishwasher, is that your right? Is your right to being happy more important than others?
  - badestrand 1y ago
    The problem of resource distribution is solved by money already. If I can't pay for the robots, I am not getting them. And if I buy my robots and you only get a dishwasher then you can afford two nice vacations on top while I don't. You don't lose anything if I get robots.
    - clutchdude 1y ago
      I feel this disregards of scarcity economics. Let's say we have a finite amount of cheap water units between us. After exhausting those units, the price to acquire more goes up. Each our actions use up those units. If restrictions on water use do not exist, you can quickly use up those units and, if you can easily afford more units, which makes sense as you have enough for robots, you are not concerned with using that cheap water up. I can't even afford to "toil" with my dishwasher now.
- devmor 1y ago
  A more detailed analogy would be if you owning the robots meant that all food is now packaged for robots instead of humans, increasing the personal labor cost of obtaining and preparing food as well as inflating the cost of dinnerware exponentially, while driving up my power bill to cover the cost of expanding infrastructure to power your robots. In that case, I certainly am against you owning the robots and view your desire for them as a direct and immediate threat against my well being.

throwaway13337 1y ago

Does your analogy mean that you'd like to stop someone from owning that cadre of robots? Or is this just a personal preference? You can have your dishwasher and I'll take the robots. And we can both be happy.

clutchdude 1y ago
And therein is the problem - if your robots take up so many resources I can't have my dishwasher, is that your right? Is your right to being happy more important than others?
- badestrand 1y ago
  The problem of resource distribution is solved by money already. If I can't pay for the robots, I am not getting them. And if I buy my robots and you only get a dishwasher then you can afford two nice vacations on top while I don't. You don't lose anything if I get robots.
  - clutchdude 1y ago
    I feel this disregards of scarcity economics. Let's say we have a finite amount of cheap water units between us. After exhausting those units, the price to acquire more goes up. Each our actions use up those units. If restrictions on water use do not exist, you can quickly use up those units and, if you can easily afford more units, which makes sense as you have enough for robots, you are not concerned with using that cheap water up. I can't even afford to "toil" with my dishwasher now.
devmor 1y ago
A more detailed analogy would be if you owning the robots meant that all food is now packaged for robots instead of humans, increasing the personal labor cost of obtaining and preparing food as well as inflating the cost of dinnerware exponentially, while driving up my power bill to cover the cost of expanding infrastructure to power your robots. In that case, I certainly am against you owning the robots and view your desire for them as a direct and immediate threat against my well being.