4 ms·

The goal of technology is to eliminate labor, not to create the need for more of it. If everyone is fishing with their bare hands and catching just enough to fe

The goal of technology is to eliminate labor, not to create the need for more of it. If everyone is fishing with their bare hands and catching just enough to feed themselves (edit: say one fish), then when nets are invented and people can catch 100 fish a day, 99% of the fishing industry jobs disappear. That's a wonderful thing. That means 99% of the population can devote themselves to less urgent priorities, like building shelters, making clothes, etc. Sure, those crackerjack fish catchers who could catch 2 or 3 fish a day have lost their jobs, and might become less affluent than they were...but the few losers in every industry when technology changes the employment structure are outweighed by the vast majority who benefit greatly. And lest this seem unfair, consider that if everyone's current job were obsolete, everyone would be astoundingly better off despite losing the comparative advantage they had built in their career. The same thing has been happening since the first inventions. It's been one long history of job loss and rising standard of living, and no short term variance should obscure this fact. The more jobs made obsolete, the better. People will simply shift to less important work, and increasingly people will simply work fewer hours, as technology makes the economy so productive that prices fall to such a degree that people can live on an hour of labor a week.

bostik 12y ago
> technology makes the economy so productive that prices fall to such a degree that people can live on an hour of labor a week. I would say that prediction can hold true only in a world with infinite resources, infinite space for expansion (to make population growth a negligible issue), and effectively free energy. Everywhere else population, food and energy production will compete with one another one way or the other - and there will always be a lower bound in energy needs for transporting goods from where they are economically produced, to the points of consumption or use. Now if we could cover most of Sahara with efficient solar panels and transport the energy over superconducting wires anywhere in the world...
nickthemagicman 12y ago
I liked your post. The issue is that with modern technology,tech is not just replacing ONE job like fish catching. Tech is replacing ALL jobs..... fish catching, clothes making, accounting, medicine, programming, etc. Sufficiently advanced tech can replace just about ANY job. And do it better than a person can. So the issue is where does everyone go? And I don't think 7 billion people can all be inventors.
- gregpilling 12y ago
  My friend owns http://www.potterusa.com/ http://www.potterusa.com/ which sells tools for Jewelry making and his customers are 95% hobbyists and 5% professionals who actually make a living. The 95% make stuff, sell it at a profit and get to feel like a business. But it really isn't when they spend 10 hours making something and the end results is they earned a $1 per hour. They don't care, they are middle to upper class. They are just having fun. I think that is more the future. I think it will be a nice enjoyable future.
- cell303 12y ago
  Actually, I think they can (also be entrepreneurs and artists) They just can't all be successful ones. However, due to the non-linearity of success, the winners would offset the losers, which is also why incubators like y combinator can make a profit. So what it boils down to really is a social issue, where you have to find a way to ensure a fair treatment of the losers. Theoretically they were just as likely to be huge successes (I think this is especially true for artists) as those who actually turned out to be. If that wasn't true one could easily run a successful incubator on their own. However, culturally, the idea of compensating the losers seems alien (and even outrageous in some places) as we used to live in a economy with a much more linear relationship between effort and return. I guess this is why ideas like 'basic income' have such a hard time being even discussed, although they would address the issue, maybe even solve it.
andreasvc 12y ago
> The goal of technology is to eliminate labor, Technology extends our capabilities. Technology does not have an ideology or teleological function, that is merely something humans might use it for. I would doubt even that, because inventing & spreading technology is not something that is easily controlled or planned.
- oscargrouch 12y ago
  You are forgeting that corporations are "controlling" technology nowadays, in our current model of society, and corps are managed to have the biggest profit margins they can; So in the end technology are being advanced specially in areas it can help the corps to have higher margins That's how the previous comment makes perfect sense
  - andreasvc 12y ago
    I believe that control is limited. Even with copious amounts of money, not all technology is possible, or possible right now; e.g., flying cars, nuclear fusion, quantum computing. Corporations have some leeway in choosing what to invest in but they are predominantly driven by short-term considerations of profitability. I think that in the longer term, technology is something that happens to us while we're busy making other plans (paraphrasing Woody Allen).

bostik 12y ago

> technology makes the economy so productive that prices fall to such a degree that people can live on an hour of labor a week. I would say that prediction can hold true only in a world with infinite resources, infinite space for expansion (to make population growth a negligible issue), and effectively free energy. Everywhere else population, food and energy production will compete with one another one way or the other - and there will always be a lower bound in energy needs for transporting goods from where they are economically produced, to the points of consumption or use. Now if we could cover most of Sahara with efficient solar panels and transport the energy over superconducting wires anywhere in the world...

nickthemagicman 12y ago

I liked your post. The issue is that with modern technology,tech is not just replacing ONE job like fish catching. Tech is replacing ALL jobs..... fish catching, clothes making, accounting, medicine, programming, etc. Sufficiently advanced tech can replace just about ANY job. And do it better than a person can. So the issue is where does everyone go? And I don't think 7 billion people can all be inventors.

gregpilling 12y ago
My friend owns http://www.potterusa.com/ http://www.potterusa.com/ which sells tools for Jewelry making and his customers are 95% hobbyists and 5% professionals who actually make a living. The 95% make stuff, sell it at a profit and get to feel like a business. But it really isn't when they spend 10 hours making something and the end results is they earned a $1 per hour. They don't care, they are middle to upper class. They are just having fun. I think that is more the future. I think it will be a nice enjoyable future.
cell303 12y ago
Actually, I think they can (also be entrepreneurs and artists) They just can't all be successful ones. However, due to the non-linearity of success, the winners would offset the losers, which is also why incubators like y combinator can make a profit. So what it boils down to really is a social issue, where you have to find a way to ensure a fair treatment of the losers. Theoretically they were just as likely to be huge successes (I think this is especially true for artists) as those who actually turned out to be. If that wasn't true one could easily run a successful incubator on their own. However, culturally, the idea of compensating the losers seems alien (and even outrageous in some places) as we used to live in a economy with a much more linear relationship between effort and return. I guess this is why ideas like 'basic income' have such a hard time being even discussed, although they would address the issue, maybe even solve it.

andreasvc 12y ago

> The goal of technology is to eliminate labor, Technology extends our capabilities. Technology does not have an ideology or teleological function, that is merely something humans might use it for. I would doubt even that, because inventing & spreading technology is not something that is easily controlled or planned.

oscargrouch 12y ago
You are forgeting that corporations are "controlling" technology nowadays, in our current model of society, and corps are managed to have the biggest profit margins they can; So in the end technology are being advanced specially in areas it can help the corps to have higher margins That's how the previous comment makes perfect sense
- andreasvc 12y ago
  I believe that control is limited. Even with copious amounts of money, not all technology is possible, or possible right now; e.g., flying cars, nuclear fusion, quantum computing. Corporations have some leeway in choosing what to invest in but they are predominantly driven by short-term considerations of profitability. I think that in the longer term, technology is something that happens to us while we're busy making other plans (paraphrasing Woody Allen).