3 ms·

This leads to the big philosophical question that has been relevant for some time. If we have the choice, which society is preferrable: (1) Most services autom

by marvin 12y ago

This leads to the big philosophical question that has been relevant for some time. If we have the choice, which society is preferrable: (1) Most services automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn money are supported by taxing those who do (2) technological progress is actively hindered in order to ensure that everyone has the skills to hold a job that pays enough to live on, or (3) most services are automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn enough to live are left to live in poverty (or starve) And as technologists, which world should we push for? Ethics is not given nearly enough consideration among technologists, and this is one prime example.

Hytosys 12y ago
I don't know that it is the popular opinion in my country (USA) but I'd choose to live in society (1). I grew up being convinced that a successful person is one who "earns" one's keep, but it's becoming clear that by turning our backs to those in poverty, we make the world a much worse place than if instead we normalized the class bracket to keep the poorest at an approximate income value of ~$30k/yr. Maybe I should just move to Denmark.
- patcon 12y ago
  Or build/support the things that expose the cracks in the prevailing political/social wisdom :) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
DanielBMarkham 12y ago
I believe you are grouping "those who don't have the skills or abilities" as one unit. Seems like a very large container to be making decisions about. Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them. Suppose you graduate from college with a degree in repairing fax machines. Fax machines are quickly disappearing. Should you: 1) Continue to learn about fax machines while the rest of society pays for your food, shelter, and health care. After all, it's not for us to judge what you do with your life. 2) Expect fax machines to be mandated by law so that you and the other fax machine experts can have a job, or 3) Expect things to change. Try to match your own skills and desires with whatever most people want. That is, try to fit yourself into the society and world you find yourself in and not expect the world to change for you. (Whether or not the rest of us support you during this time is irrelevant, except in terms of whether it helps or hinders the change you need to make) I believe this is the same set of alternatives you have offered, only looking at it from the individual level instead of as some hypothetical external observer.
- Ensorceled 12y ago
  4) Realize that repairing fax machines is pretty much your intellectual limit and now that fax machines are disappearing you don't have the mental capacity to learn how to fix self driving cars. You are now in the group "those who don't have the skills or abilities". 4) is what is actually happening now. The "bar" is constantly being raised.
- sooheon 12y ago
  You seem to have intentionally misrepresented options 1 and 3. The society originally described includes in option 1 supporting the fax repair man while he dives into founding a startup, starting a homely little cliffside cafe, busking on the streets or whatever else. It does not mandate that the recipient of the support continue to pursue a dead end against all evidence and logic.
  - jungsoo 12y ago
    That is assuming the fax repairman has the motivation to do all of those things you have mentioned. Considering that life ideally leads to a comfortable retirement for most individuals (i.e.: doing nothing and spending one's days leisurely is the ultimate goal as opposed to creating value for society). I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life. Now I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing. When technology and automation improves to the point where laborers are made obsolete, could society potentially adopt an egalitarian system where through taxation, society can afford to let the laborers live in complacency with a satisfying slice of the pie, while the more ambitious (those who continue to push through with scientific and technological advancements) are rewarded with an even bigger piece of the pie? With increasing advancements, will society reach a point where there's more than enough pie for everyone?
    - OvidNaso 12y ago
      "I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life." This seems to be the one "fact" that makes all the difference in the entire debate. My question is, how come all of history shows man's drive to explore, build, conquer, discover, organize, etc...yet you conclude the "safe" bet is the oppisite?

by marvin 12y ago

Hytosys 12y ago

I don't know that it is the popular opinion in my country (USA) but I'd choose to live in society (1). I grew up being convinced that a successful person is one who "earns" one's keep, but it's becoming clear that by turning our backs to those in poverty, we make the world a much worse place than if instead we normalized the class bracket to keep the poorest at an approximate income value of ~$30k/yr. Maybe I should just move to Denmark.

patcon 12y ago
Or build/support the things that expose the cracks in the prevailing political/social wisdom :) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

I believe you are grouping "those who don't have the skills or abilities" as one unit. Seems like a very large container to be making decisions about. Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them. Suppose you graduate from college with a degree in repairing fax machines. Fax machines are quickly disappearing. Should you: 1) Continue to learn about fax machines while the rest of society pays for your food, shelter, and health care. After all, it's not for us to judge what you do with your life. 2) Expect fax machines to be mandated by law so that you and the other fax machine experts can have a job, or 3) Expect things to change. Try to match your own skills and desires with whatever most people want. That is, try to fit yourself into the society and world you find yourself in and not expect the world to change for you. (Whether or not the rest of us support you during this time is irrelevant, except in terms of whether it helps or hinders the change you need to make) I believe this is the same set of alternatives you have offered, only looking at it from the individual level instead of as some hypothetical external observer.

Ensorceled 12y ago
4) Realize that repairing fax machines is pretty much your intellectual limit and now that fax machines are disappearing you don't have the mental capacity to learn how to fix self driving cars. You are now in the group "those who don't have the skills or abilities". 4) is what is actually happening now. The "bar" is constantly being raised.
sooheon 12y ago
You seem to have intentionally misrepresented options 1 and 3. The society originally described includes in option 1 supporting the fax repair man while he dives into founding a startup, starting a homely little cliffside cafe, busking on the streets or whatever else. It does not mandate that the recipient of the support continue to pursue a dead end against all evidence and logic.
- jungsoo 12y ago
  That is assuming the fax repairman has the motivation to do all of those things you have mentioned. Considering that life ideally leads to a comfortable retirement for most individuals (i.e.: doing nothing and spending one's days leisurely is the ultimate goal as opposed to creating value for society). I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life. Now I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing. When technology and automation improves to the point where laborers are made obsolete, could society potentially adopt an egalitarian system where through taxation, society can afford to let the laborers live in complacency with a satisfying slice of the pie, while the more ambitious (those who continue to push through with scientific and technological advancements) are rewarded with an even bigger piece of the pie? With increasing advancements, will society reach a point where there's more than enough pie for everyone?
  - OvidNaso 12y ago
    "I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life." This seems to be the one "fact" that makes all the difference in the entire debate. My question is, how come all of history shows man's drive to explore, build, conquer, discover, organize, etc...yet you conclude the "safe" bet is the oppisite?