4 ms·

1. The post was intentionally provocative. I said so in the post. I don't really care about the blame as much as the solution. 2. It is a serious dilemma for m

1. The post was intentionally provocative. I said so in the post. I don't really care about the blame as much as the solution. 2. It is a serious dilemma for me. I've worked in, and now I teach industrial automation. I have probably automated thousands of peoples' jobs away. While I don't believe it is my fault, or my client companies' faults that there are box packers and fruit sorters who are unemployed. I do feel enough responsibility that I should at least advocate for the people's sake. I also don't think it is the fault of the workers. One thing I do know is that wide-scale automation of labor is a potential social disaster if we don't figure out how to handle the transition gracefully. 3. I'll double down and tell you my opinion that "euthanasia" is really too kind a word for what happens to the sick who are also poor in this country. Do I think it is deliberate? Maybe, judging by the priority policymakers have placed on alleviating the problem.

mikeash 13y ago
Personally, I love your #3. When you put it that way, it is insane that we think it's cruel to kill someone swiftly and painlessly by giving them drugs, but perfectly reasonable to kill someone slowly and painfully over a period of years by gradually denying them the necessities of life. It boils down to diffusion of responsibility. If you kill someone directly, someone is directly responsible. But if you just let them go out into the world without the means to make a living, everybody is sort of responsible together, meaning no individual is strongly responsible at all.
AYBABTME 13y ago
`euthanazia` implies that somebody is doing something to another, in this case that we actively make them suffer a cruel sort with the intention of killing them. It's obviously not my intention, nor do I think it is the intention of most. I believe it is more correct to simply state that human life can be tough walk. If you don't manage to keep your head up, you'll suffer the wrath of some evolutionary conspiration. We as societies can try to alleviate that minimum suffering by choosing to provide basic needs. Some societies decide to do it, some don't. I believe societies who don't are of this opinion because they are blind to the benefits, not because they are evil.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >I believe societies who don't [provide for basic needs] are of this opinion because they are blind to the benefits, not because they are evil. It's likely also a side effect of the current structure, which dictates that we must all work. Of course, this mantra is required to encourage people (especially low wage workers) to continue working.
hef19898 13y ago
That's a big problem I see, too. In the past, the productivity increase caused by automatisation was either used for export (driven by economic growth in other countries) or domestic growth. At least in Germany baseline unemplyment increased all the time, so. Now, that increased productivity isn't eaten up by external parties the basic options are 1. Stoping right here and wait (won't happen in our world) 2. Find a way to provide a living for the people no longer needed in any given economy (it's not their fault after all, and it seems to me that there's enough wealth for everybody) 3. Or continue with your option 3. Sadly enough I think it will be option 3 for quite a while. Looking at the situation in some european contries right now (like Spain or Greece, maybe even Italy and France) which have somewhere around 50 % unemployment at the under 25 year olds this situation is already creeping up on us, slowly but non the less.

mikeash 13y ago

Personally, I love your #3. When you put it that way, it is insane that we think it's cruel to kill someone swiftly and painlessly by giving them drugs, but perfectly reasonable to kill someone slowly and painfully over a period of years by gradually denying them the necessities of life. It boils down to diffusion of responsibility. If you kill someone directly, someone is directly responsible. But if you just let them go out into the world without the means to make a living, everybody is sort of responsible together, meaning no individual is strongly responsible at all.

AYBABTME 13y ago

`euthanazia` implies that somebody is doing something to another, in this case that we actively make them suffer a cruel sort with the intention of killing them. It's obviously not my intention, nor do I think it is the intention of most. I believe it is more correct to simply state that human life can be tough walk. If you don't manage to keep your head up, you'll suffer the wrath of some evolutionary conspiration. We as societies can try to alleviate that minimum suffering by choosing to provide basic needs. Some societies decide to do it, some don't. I believe societies who don't are of this opinion because they are blind to the benefits, not because they are evil.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>I believe societies who don't [provide for basic needs] are of this opinion because they are blind to the benefits, not because they are evil. It's likely also a side effect of the current structure, which dictates that we must all work. Of course, this mantra is required to encourage people (especially low wage workers) to continue working.

hef19898 13y ago

That's a big problem I see, too. In the past, the productivity increase caused by automatisation was either used for export (driven by economic growth in other countries) or domestic growth. At least in Germany baseline unemplyment increased all the time, so. Now, that increased productivity isn't eaten up by external parties the basic options are 1. Stoping right here and wait (won't happen in our world) 2. Find a way to provide a living for the people no longer needed in any given economy (it's not their fault after all, and it seems to me that there's enough wealth for everybody) 3. Or continue with your option 3. Sadly enough I think it will be option 3 for quite a while. Looking at the situation in some european contries right now (like Spain or Greece, maybe even Italy and France) which have somewhere around 50 % unemployment at the under 25 year olds this situation is already creeping up on us, slowly but non the less.