4 ms·

Sambdala, I'm one of the ppl who wrote the article. I actually agree with you that today's jobs have a higher potential to really affect the world. Technology l

by esharef 14y ago

Sambdala, I'm one of the ppl who wrote the article. I actually agree with you that today's jobs have a higher potential to really affect the world. Technology lets us outsource tedious tasks to computers so we can focus on more meaningful and creative things. I think people who just say "technology is destroying jobs" are missing the fact that technology is creating completely new opportunities (as you say "to create something of value from nothing and give access to it to the entire world")

abbasmehdi 14y ago
I think "people who just say "technology is destroying jobs"" should just be ignored, like their predecessors were when they decried plant robotics replacing assembly line workers. This is the circle of life, just like the newest wave of immigrants takes the shittiest jobs in the economy, the shittiest (mindless) jobs in the economy are eaten up by technology. This has been going on in this country (US) since the beginning of the industrial revolution. P.S. Great article btw.
- Sambdala 14y ago
  This was basically my point. I enjoyed the article, but I think arguing against the point without questioning the underlying assumptions takes effort and attention away from building the future rather than reassuring those who are scared of it.
Sambdala 14y ago
Hi Elli, I did enjoy the article, and I agree that there need to be good ways to address this form of argument. My main thought, probably not well expressed, was that I wish it had been more emphasized how it's not the most terrible thing in the world for someone to have to pivot their career, and it's getting easier for people to do so every day. However, it's going to get harder with each passing day to "prove" specific forms of technology[1] generate Y jobs for reasons that you expressed in the article. For that reason, I think it's likely better to try to sidestep the argument altogether and explain why it's asking the wrong question instead of first providing a direct answer to the question/argument. I did re-read the article after making the first comment, and I admit I had concentrated on the first half of it a little more than the second half where you do address some of my concerns. [1] Technology in general isn't under attack here, it's generally only technology created in the last X years. X generally being the number of years since the target audience for the argument entered the workforce.

by esharef 14y ago

abbasmehdi 14y ago

I think "people who just say "technology is destroying jobs"" should just be ignored, like their predecessors were when they decried plant robotics replacing assembly line workers. This is the circle of life, just like the newest wave of immigrants takes the shittiest jobs in the economy, the shittiest (mindless) jobs in the economy are eaten up by technology. This has been going on in this country (US) since the beginning of the industrial revolution. P.S. Great article btw.

Sambdala 14y ago
This was basically my point. I enjoyed the article, but I think arguing against the point without questioning the underlying assumptions takes effort and attention away from building the future rather than reassuring those who are scared of it.

Sambdala 14y ago

Hi Elli, I did enjoy the article, and I agree that there need to be good ways to address this form of argument. My main thought, probably not well expressed, was that I wish it had been more emphasized how it's not the most terrible thing in the world for someone to have to pivot their career, and it's getting easier for people to do so every day. However, it's going to get harder with each passing day to "prove" specific forms of technology[1] generate Y jobs for reasons that you expressed in the article. For that reason, I think it's likely better to try to sidestep the argument altogether and explain why it's asking the wrong question instead of first providing a direct answer to the question/argument. I did re-read the article after making the first comment, and I admit I had concentrated on the first half of it a little more than the second half where you do address some of my concerns. [1] Technology in general isn't under attack here, it's generally only technology created in the last X years. X generally being the number of years since the target audience for the argument entered the workforce.