5 ms·

Historically, more efficient agriculture meant a population boom. That's kinda the opposite of people starving to death. A lot of agriculture historically and

Historically, more efficient agriculture meant a population boom. That's kinda the opposite of people starving to death. A lot of agriculture historically and in poor countries like India today is subsistence agriculture, yeoman farmers living off what they grow directly. More efficiency allows them to sell their surplus and to invest the proceedings, kicking off economic growth.

andrepd 5mo ago
> Historically, more efficient agriculture meant a population boom. But also a precipitous drop in life expectancy. Life in industrial towns in 1800s England was grim. Make of that what you will.
- SpaceNoodled 5mo ago
  Pollution.
  - harvey9 5mo ago
    In the towns yes. A wealthy city man could expect to live fewer years than a labourer in the countryside.
  - andrepd 5mo ago
    Surely a factor, but hardly the sole explanation; malnutrition rose, that should give you some pause.
  - oblio 5mo ago
    Pollution, malnutrition, maiming by industrial or mining equipment (huge percentage at the start).
showerst 5mo ago
Yes, but the AI that is metaphor is comparing to does not create more food. More to the point, it may not create more jobs. After a few decades of turmoil the industrial and agricultural revolutions netted out far more jobs. The verdict is still out on AI, but I wouldn't bet on it.
- zozbot234 5mo ago
  > Yes, but the AI that is metaphor is comparing to does not create more food. Mostly because food is incredibly cheap, so it's not the main focus of present-day economies. AI does however help provide many basic services that improve quality of life. The most natural and most cost-effective use of AI is arguably in helping answer simple questions, not really in cranking out tokens to somehow help write complex software. And other service work is perhaps in the middle of this range.
  - pdonis 5mo ago
    > AI does however help provide many basic services that improve quality of life. Such as? AI can't do my laundry, wash my dishes, clean my house, do my food shopping for me. AI can't care for me if I'm sick. > The most natural and most cost-effective use of AI is arguably in helping answer simple questions But the answers it gives are not reliable. They sound plausible if you don't know anything about the subject, but they're not reliable. How is this a benefit?
    - heneuehd 5mo ago
      [dead]
    - TuringTest 5mo ago
      > But the answers it gives are not reliable. They sound plausible if you don't know anything about the subject, but they're not reliable. Do not underestimate the utility of having a starting point overview on a topic you know absolutely nothing about. It may be immensely valuable even if some details are off. That's what made the XVIII's Encyclopedia such a valuable tool for civil society. By the time you get to the point where those wrong details become relevant, you have gotten a basic understanding of what the overall topic is about, so you're prepared to get a second opinion from a different source - and this time you may know enough to start asking relevant questions, rather than starting from full ignorance.
      - pdonis 5mo ago
pasquinelli 5mo ago
> Historically, more efficient agriculture meant a population boom. That's kinda the opposite of people starving to death. not necessarily. you're inadvertently conflating things. just more people alive doesn't mean they aren't starving. a population boom can be had in the starving population too.
- bluGill 5mo ago
  While you are not wrong, it is still historically correct to say that "more efficient agriculture meant a population boom". We don't know what they were doing for birth control back then (because this was a woman's job and they didn't write history), but there is plenty of evidence they must have been doing something that was effective (rhythm is more than good enough to explain this, and so likely what they were doing). People had a good idea of how much the farm could support and they tried to get just enough kids to ensure it would pass on - with enough spares for war, infant mortality and the like.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
TimByte 5mo ago
The worry with AI is not "productivity is bad." It's whether the displaced labor has anywhere comparable to go
- verve_rat 5mo ago
  There is a basic problem with framing though. Why does the labour need to find somewhere to go, but capital doesn't? Why can't the increase in productivity be captured by labour and denied to capital?
  - harvey9 5mo ago
    Do you mean to imply a political/social revolution? In any other scenario I can think of when my boss gets a new machine, he captures the value from my increased productivity or the machine eliminates my job entirely.
    - verve_rat 5mo ago
      Changing the tax system to tax capital rather than labour would probably get you 90% of the way there without great societal upheaval (capital would fight back though).
      - tekne 5mo ago
        Obligatory land value tax mention
- TheOtherHobbes 5mo ago
  There's also the worry whether productivity is real.
  - harvey9 5mo ago
    If you focus on writing ricketty software or overblown emails then no it isn't real. But if you think of e-gates instead of border officers then it is.
themafia 5mo ago
> more efficient agriculture meant a population boom More efficient agriculture meant a more efficient population. In cases where environmentally possible this obviously encourages a population boom but they're not necessarily synonymous.

andrepd 5mo ago

> Historically, more efficient agriculture meant a population boom. But also a precipitous drop in life expectancy. Life in industrial towns in 1800s England was grim. Make of that what you will.

SpaceNoodled 5mo ago
Pollution.
- harvey9 5mo ago
  In the towns yes. A wealthy city man could expect to live fewer years than a labourer in the countryside.
- andrepd 5mo ago
  Surely a factor, but hardly the sole explanation; malnutrition rose, that should give you some pause.
- oblio 5mo ago
  Pollution, malnutrition, maiming by industrial or mining equipment (huge percentage at the start).

showerst 5mo ago

Yes, but the AI that is metaphor is comparing to does not create more food. More to the point, it may not create more jobs. After a few decades of turmoil the industrial and agricultural revolutions netted out far more jobs. The verdict is still out on AI, but I wouldn't bet on it.

zozbot234 5mo ago
> Yes, but the AI that is metaphor is comparing to does not create more food. Mostly because food is incredibly cheap, so it's not the main focus of present-day economies. AI does however help provide many basic services that improve quality of life. The most natural and most cost-effective use of AI is arguably in helping answer simple questions, not really in cranking out tokens to somehow help write complex software. And other service work is perhaps in the middle of this range.
- pdonis 5mo ago
  > AI does however help provide many basic services that improve quality of life. Such as? AI can't do my laundry, wash my dishes, clean my house, do my food shopping for me. AI can't care for me if I'm sick. > The most natural and most cost-effective use of AI is arguably in helping answer simple questions But the answers it gives are not reliable. They sound plausible if you don't know anything about the subject, but they're not reliable. How is this a benefit?
  - heneuehd 5mo ago
    [dead]
  - TuringTest 5mo ago
    > But the answers it gives are not reliable. They sound plausible if you don't know anything about the subject, but they're not reliable. Do not underestimate the utility of having a starting point overview on a topic you know absolutely nothing about. It may be immensely valuable even if some details are off. That's what made the XVIII's Encyclopedia such a valuable tool for civil society. By the time you get to the point where those wrong details become relevant, you have gotten a basic understanding of what the overall topic is about, so you're prepared to get a second opinion from a different source - and this time you may know enough to start asking relevant questions, rather than starting from full ignorance.
    - pdonis 5mo ago

pasquinelli 5mo ago

> Historically, more efficient agriculture meant a population boom. That's kinda the opposite of people starving to death. not necessarily. you're inadvertently conflating things. just more people alive doesn't mean they aren't starving. a population boom can be had in the starving population too.

bluGill 5mo ago
While you are not wrong, it is still historically correct to say that "more efficient agriculture meant a population boom". We don't know what they were doing for birth control back then (because this was a woman's job and they didn't write history), but there is plenty of evidence they must have been doing something that was effective (rhythm is more than good enough to explain this, and so likely what they were doing). People had a good idea of how much the farm could support and they tried to get just enough kids to ensure it would pass on - with enough spares for war, infant mortality and the like.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

TimByte 5mo ago

The worry with AI is not "productivity is bad." It's whether the displaced labor has anywhere comparable to go

verve_rat 5mo ago
There is a basic problem with framing though. Why does the labour need to find somewhere to go, but capital doesn't? Why can't the increase in productivity be captured by labour and denied to capital?
- harvey9 5mo ago
  Do you mean to imply a political/social revolution? In any other scenario I can think of when my boss gets a new machine, he captures the value from my increased productivity or the machine eliminates my job entirely.
  - verve_rat 5mo ago
    Changing the tax system to tax capital rather than labour would probably get you 90% of the way there without great societal upheaval (capital would fight back though).
    - tekne 5mo ago
      Obligatory land value tax mention
TheOtherHobbes 5mo ago
There's also the worry whether productivity is real.
- harvey9 5mo ago
  If you focus on writing ricketty software or overblown emails then no it isn't real. But if you think of e-gates instead of border officers then it is.

themafia 5mo ago

> more efficient agriculture meant a population boom More efficient agriculture meant a more efficient population. In cases where environmentally possible this obviously encourages a population boom but they're not necessarily synonymous.