3 ms·

You are under the assumption that 'efficiency' means resource efficiency. That is untrue. Exhibit A is how convoluted our current system is with our non-renewab

You are under the assumption that 'efficiency' means resource efficiency. That is untrue. Exhibit A is how convoluted our current system is with our non-renewables. Replacing people with machines won't fix that. Efficiency is celebrating the fact that you can drop your expensive annual costs and the liability of employing humans to conduct your business. People are expensive and demand things like rights and benefits. Machines can be had with a purchase/lease and maintenance costs. Machines won't negotiate or get a lawyer. That's efficiency. Meanwhile, we'll strip the earth to build these machines in the name of efficiency while more of the population is made useless and left to rot by an economy that functions without them.

dylanjermiah 11y ago
That's an interesting narrative. It is however historically inaccurate. All throughout human history we have replaced tedious, dangerous and repetitive tasks through means other than human labor. Increased efficiency (let's set aside the definition for the moment) has only helped us. Specifically why is this time different?
- task_queue 11y ago
  Truck driving is one of the few remaining jobs in most states where the local economy has failed its population. It was the most common occupancy in 29 states in 2014. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-most-common-job-in-every-state http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-... Who is the us "efficiency" has helped? At the end of the day, do I benefit from the fact that Company X's truck no longer needs a driver? Does that benefit really outweigh ruining the livelihoods of millions of people, whose family now can't pay taxes and lost their ability to see doctors or to maintain a roof over their heads? When do we get to reap the benefits of this automation? There is a lot of money being made by letting people go and letting the tax payer pay for the societal damage. Will those millions of drivers be transferred to a new department within the company? Will they get a severance check from the profits of this automation? Or will unemployment and lack of medical care shave 20+ years off their lives so a shipping company can save a dime that society gets to pay for?

dylanjermiah 11y ago

That's an interesting narrative. It is however historically inaccurate. All throughout human history we have replaced tedious, dangerous and repetitive tasks through means other than human labor. Increased efficiency (let's set aside the definition for the moment) has only helped us. Specifically why is this time different?

task_queue 11y ago
Truck driving is one of the few remaining jobs in most states where the local economy has failed its population. It was the most common occupancy in 29 states in 2014. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-most-common-job-in-every-state http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-... Who is the us "efficiency" has helped? At the end of the day, do I benefit from the fact that Company X's truck no longer needs a driver? Does that benefit really outweigh ruining the livelihoods of millions of people, whose family now can't pay taxes and lost their ability to see doctors or to maintain a roof over their heads? When do we get to reap the benefits of this automation? There is a lot of money being made by letting people go and letting the tax payer pay for the societal damage. Will those millions of drivers be transferred to a new department within the company? Will they get a severance check from the profits of this automation? Or will unemployment and lack of medical care shave 20+ years off their lives so a shipping company can save a dime that society gets to pay for?