5 ms·

Well said, with one caveat: that ballgame isn't new; it's the same ballgame that's been played, with the same players, since the dawn of the Industrial Revoluti

Well said, with one caveat: that ballgame isn't new; it's the same ballgame that's been played, with the same players, since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The sky has been perpetually falling for 300 years, yet here we are, banging away on our keyboards in our climate-controlled abodes with full bellies, worrying about whether we'll get rich or merely live comfortably. The capacity of people to believe that the end is nigh via any of a seemingly infinite number of imaginative scenarios despite the historical precedent to the contrary is simply stunning.

venus 14y ago
I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree to some extent, but you're making some very big assumptions. > The sky has been perpetually falling for 300 years, yet here we are Maybe the sky takes 300 years to fall. Did you think about it that way? > The capacity of people to believe that the end is nigh [..] despite the historical precedent to the contrary What historical precedent? Come on, tell me what happened to the last human civilisation to go through industrialisation and computerisation and, lastly, robotification. I'm dying to know what happened to them and see what lessons we can learn from how they handled the utter demise of manual and low-skill labour in their societies.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  Don't be obtuse. I'm referring to the historical precedent set by the last million times some group believed that the world was going to shit, and that their group knew exactly how. Historical precedent clearly tends towards continuation and solutions for the problems that plague us rather than death and destruction because we could not figure them out. Of course I've thought about it that way, but now let me ask you this: why do you want to think about it that way? What is it inside of you that drives you to believe that THAT way is the correct way to think about it? Doesn't the fact that you are worrying about it mean that the problem is comprehensible to the majority of the human race, that there are probably also millions of other people worrying about it, that the more of a problem that particular problem becomes, the more people will think about it, and that a solution will probably be found? How many times does that situation have to play out before people no longer listen to that demon inside of them which says that the unknown will destroy all of us? Answer: never I hope, because it is that demon which saves us, time and time again.
  - venus 14y ago
    Stop trying to cast people's legitimate arguments as mere products of some deep-seated fear of the unknown. If you talk like that we can't have any kind of proper discussion. I could just as easily retort that your rose-coloured reassurances are nothing but a manifestation of your inner child's need for a comfortable continuation of the status quo. And I don't know why you keep pointing to history as a source of solace. History is nothing but an endless procession of empires and civilisations falling in tatters, no matter how many of their plucky young problem-solvers were united in worry. Just because people tend to cry wolf doesn't mean there's no such thing as wolves. Anyway, no-one is arguing that humanity per se will not survive the emerging tech tsunami. We are, I hope, trying to calmly and rationally discuss its profound implications for the socio-economic structure we know and enjoy today, what we can do to prepare ourselves and others, and what roles we might seek or try to create for ourselves to do the greatest good in the coming era.
    - notdrunkatall 14y ago
      The technologies are different, but the argument that bad things will come of technological advance is always the same. Luddites are nothing new, and just as their argument is the product of a deep-seated fear of the unknown, so too is yours. When civilizations fail, they do not fail because of technological advancement. I challenge you to name an example which did.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        These arguments are not being raised by Luddites! These are not the vague grumblings of displaced union laborers, but well-articulated concerns of the people actually bringing about these changes to society. You're fooling yourself if you think "society" will magically fix itself when nobody has to work and thus nobody gets paid. That nebulous "society" is right here, looking for the answers to difficult questions. Now, remind us what happened to Rome once there was abundant free bread and entertainment? You can't say that technological advancement never causes societies to fail, because we have exactly zero historical precedent.

venus 14y ago

I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree to some extent, but you're making some very big assumptions. > The sky has been perpetually falling for 300 years, yet here we are Maybe the sky takes 300 years to fall. Did you think about it that way? > The capacity of people to believe that the end is nigh [..] despite the historical precedent to the contrary What historical precedent? Come on, tell me what happened to the last human civilisation to go through industrialisation and computerisation and, lastly, robotification. I'm dying to know what happened to them and see what lessons we can learn from how they handled the utter demise of manual and low-skill labour in their societies.

notdrunkatall 14y ago
Don't be obtuse. I'm referring to the historical precedent set by the last million times some group believed that the world was going to shit, and that their group knew exactly how. Historical precedent clearly tends towards continuation and solutions for the problems that plague us rather than death and destruction because we could not figure them out. Of course I've thought about it that way, but now let me ask you this: why do you want to think about it that way? What is it inside of you that drives you to believe that THAT way is the correct way to think about it? Doesn't the fact that you are worrying about it mean that the problem is comprehensible to the majority of the human race, that there are probably also millions of other people worrying about it, that the more of a problem that particular problem becomes, the more people will think about it, and that a solution will probably be found? How many times does that situation have to play out before people no longer listen to that demon inside of them which says that the unknown will destroy all of us? Answer: never I hope, because it is that demon which saves us, time and time again.
- venus 14y ago
  Stop trying to cast people's legitimate arguments as mere products of some deep-seated fear of the unknown. If you talk like that we can't have any kind of proper discussion. I could just as easily retort that your rose-coloured reassurances are nothing but a manifestation of your inner child's need for a comfortable continuation of the status quo. And I don't know why you keep pointing to history as a source of solace. History is nothing but an endless procession of empires and civilisations falling in tatters, no matter how many of their plucky young problem-solvers were united in worry. Just because people tend to cry wolf doesn't mean there's no such thing as wolves. Anyway, no-one is arguing that humanity per se will not survive the emerging tech tsunami. We are, I hope, trying to calmly and rationally discuss its profound implications for the socio-economic structure we know and enjoy today, what we can do to prepare ourselves and others, and what roles we might seek or try to create for ourselves to do the greatest good in the coming era.
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    The technologies are different, but the argument that bad things will come of technological advance is always the same. Luddites are nothing new, and just as their argument is the product of a deep-seated fear of the unknown, so too is yours. When civilizations fail, they do not fail because of technological advancement. I challenge you to name an example which did.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      These arguments are not being raised by Luddites! These are not the vague grumblings of displaced union laborers, but well-articulated concerns of the people actually bringing about these changes to society. You're fooling yourself if you think "society" will magically fix itself when nobody has to work and thus nobody gets paid. That nebulous "society" is right here, looking for the answers to difficult questions. Now, remind us what happened to Rome once there was abundant free bread and entertainment? You can't say that technological advancement never causes societies to fail, because we have exactly zero historical precedent.