7 ms·

Every time human labor is replaced by machines this question gets asked. So far, over many centuries, the answer has unequivocally been: over the long run, rep

Every time human labor is replaced by machines this question gets asked. So far, over many centuries, the answer has unequivocally been: over the long run, replacing humans with machines is incredibly good. The bad is short lived but real - people have to switch jobs, often for lower work because they are too old to amortize new skills training. Short of skynet, I celebrate humans being supplanted.

purringmeow 13y ago
Yeah, I know it's basically like what happened after the industrial revolution. However, I wonder what the consequences would be, considering the constantly rising population.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
It only works until 51% of the population is unemployed and in the streets cold and hungry. The pitchfork business is going to boom at that point.
- thatthatis 13y ago
  Over the past 150 years or so we went from ~90% of the labor force working in agriculture to between 1 and 10% working in agriculture. That's a shift of about 80% over two generations.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    We were also able to find jobs for those who no longer worked in ag. It appears there is concern (quite a bit, actually) that we may no longer be able to find jobs for those displaced by software and robotics (automation). If you continue to automate jobs, there will eventually be very few jobs left. How the result of this is handled will be interesting to say the least.
    - thatthatis 13y ago
      The concern is not new. It's been around for centuries.
      - kansface 13y ago
        Sure, but there is reason to believe it is different this time around. We are close to automating away all blue collar jobs outside of the service sector. We are also making inroads in white collar jobs too like law and medicine. At some point, minus an apocalypse, we will be able to automate away most meaningful work for everyone. This was not the case 150 years ago.
jotm 13y ago
Now if politicians could be replaced, that would be revolutionary! :-)

purringmeow 13y ago

Yeah, I know it's basically like what happened after the industrial revolution. However, I wonder what the consequences would be, considering the constantly rising population.

toomuchtodo 13y ago

It only works until 51% of the population is unemployed and in the streets cold and hungry. The pitchfork business is going to boom at that point.

thatthatis 13y ago
Over the past 150 years or so we went from ~90% of the labor force working in agriculture to between 1 and 10% working in agriculture. That's a shift of about 80% over two generations.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  We were also able to find jobs for those who no longer worked in ag. It appears there is concern (quite a bit, actually) that we may no longer be able to find jobs for those displaced by software and robotics (automation). If you continue to automate jobs, there will eventually be very few jobs left. How the result of this is handled will be interesting to say the least.
  - thatthatis 13y ago
    The concern is not new. It's been around for centuries.
    - kansface 13y ago
      Sure, but there is reason to believe it is different this time around. We are close to automating away all blue collar jobs outside of the service sector. We are also making inroads in white collar jobs too like law and medicine. At some point, minus an apocalypse, we will be able to automate away most meaningful work for everyone. This was not the case 150 years ago.

jotm 13y ago

Now if politicians could be replaced, that would be revolutionary! :-)