4 ms·
Asimov imagined that humanity would decide to distribute the wealth accrued by the automatons, and the problem wouldn't be lost capital for workers, but lost me
by dkrich 13y ago
Asimov imagined that humanity would decide to distribute the wealth accrued by the automatons, and the problem wouldn't be lost capital for workers, but lost meaning. Of course, in reality, it's both—and therefore a much, much bleaker scenario.
I don't think Asimov believed that "humanity would decide to distribute the wealth accrued by the automatons" at all. I think he believed (as I do) that automation reduces costs. Reduced cost is equivalent to increased wealth. If nobody has to work anymore because everything they need is close to free of charge, then what is the motivation to create or do anything? Hence a sense of pointlessness to life, etc.
Now obviously that is not the case in 2014, but the author's assumption that the reality is necessarily lost capital is unfounded. Any one industry that is displaced by automation examined in a tunnel will appear bleak, but in the long term, the consumers are likely better off because they become wealthier. I think that idea extrapolated outward to most every manufacturing industry is what Asimov was referring to.
- PavlovsCat 13y agoYou're talking about owners and consumers; where are the workers in this?
- PavlovsCat 13y agoThe fuck? It's a simple question, no?
- dkrich 13y agoThe point is that workers are no longer necessary because everything is automated. I do not believe this will ever really be feasible because you still need lawyers, the government, police, teachers, etc. But I do believe that as time goes on more and more industries will become more efficient in production capability, rendering a large part of our society fairly useless in relation to productivity.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago> The point is that workers are no longer necessary because everything is automated. Sure, but what then happens to them? My guess is poverty and starvation, rather than lower costs for owners of means of production leading to giving means of production or products away for free. Why shouldn't this game of musical chairs keep going on until there are only a few dozen mansions and millions of golf courses and parks left? Or even machines optimizing humans away completely -- unless held on a tight leash, why shouldn't they? And if held on a tight leash, why would this not also extend to the disenfranchised masses, the then "useless eaters"? As much as I would like to believe it, everything else being the same I don't think automation and lower costs by themselves will necessarily lead to anything good. Worker's rights weren't granted because they could be afforded, they had to be fought for. Same for segregation and other things. But these people had something to throw on the scales -- unnecessary workers will not have that. They will be at the mercy of others, and I do not see enough mercy to go around already, looking bleaker going forward. We already have elites that are pretty much above the law -- steal cell phones repeatedly, go to jail for a long time, start aggressive wars, get re-elected, be too big to fail, get bailed out. Once fooling people to get their approval is no longer required, I doubt the same classes will suddenly discover virtue.