Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
baatz.io
Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
1–10 of 74 posts
Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
#2Oh no, the singularity is coming!
Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
#3On the same tone: "Humans need not apply"
Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
#4It's not here yet, but automation able to fully replace human beings for a huge number of jobs will eventually come. At that point a universal basic income will be the only option other than walling off the majority of humanity in ghettoes. Totalitarian "poverty state" or post-scarcity socialism, take your pick.
I say this as a somewhat-former libertarian, and partly out of libertarian sentiment. The totalitarian state that would have to be put in place to enforce widespread poverty in a post-employment era would be significantly less libertarian than the alternative. I imagine something that looks like a cyberpunk noir horror film with drones and scanners and gates everywhere. Since humans do possess empathy, the (few) rich would have to be surveilled and policed as much as the poor; your wealth would be absolutely conditional upon your support of the system. Ultimately the situation is unsustainable and would collapse and probably lead to something even more totalitarian.
Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
#5The generalized version of the fallacy (“Labour-saving technologies increase unemployment in general by reducing demand for labour in general.”) may be wrong or not. That’s kind of hard to figure out.
However, the micro level version of the fallacy is, I think, not a fallacy at all, but very much true and can be disastrous for a great many individuals: “Labour-saving technologies increase unemployment among people with my qualifications by reducing demand for labour for people with my qualifications.” (The consequence may not be unemployment. The affected people more or less only qualify for jobs where no qualifications are necessary, probably leading to unemployment for some, a reduction in income for others.)
Put another way, while the labour market in general may be left intact, the effect on specific individuals may be disastrous. In that context luddites smashing up machines may be entirely rational for them personally, because even though the industrial revolution lifted large swathes of humanity out of poverty (eventually), along the way many individuals had to suffer greatly and it didn’t get better for them personally until they died. Maybe it got better for their kids or grandkids.
That’s one reason why thinking about macro level effects is not enough (but there may also be better solutions than smashing up machines, i.e. it may well be possible to get the positive macro level effects over longer time scales while also, through other means, reducing or eliminating poverty or suffering on a micro level).
Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
#6It's not here yet , but automation able to fully replace human beings for a huge number of jobs will eventually come. At that point a universal basic income will be the only option other than walling off the majority of humanity in ghettoes. Totalitarian "poverty state" or post-scarcity socialism, take your pick. I say this as a somewhat-former libertarian, and partly out of libertarian sentiment. The totalitarian st…
Or perhaps we will witness a return to living off of the land but with technologies to assist us. We have self-driving tractors and automated industrialized agriculture, but how about a personal yard robot that can till the vegetable garden, selectively removing weed but leaving the plants undisturbed.
Many suburban yards are large enough to grow plenty of food, and the food you grow yourself can vastly outperform anything you buy in terms of taste because you no longer have to be restricted to eating varieties that travel well.
But back in terms of wealth, owning land still remains important as it makes the above possible.
Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
#7Required reading anytime someone invokes the word "Luddite":
http://www.amazon.com/Rebels-Against-The-Future-Industrial/d...
Enclosure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure) is suspiciously never mentioned whenever the Luddites are invoked. It's not as simple as "technology took muh job, rar!" -- it's more like "hey, this common land that used to belong to all of us has been forcibly taken away and given to this guy with a factory who now gets to be super productive and take away our livelihoods, but he doesn't have to share any of the increased wealth he now enjoys."
Technology undoubtedly increases productivity and wealth. The question is, WHO gets to own that wealth and what gives them a right to it.
Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
#8It's not here yet , but automation able to fully replace human beings for a huge number of jobs will eventually come. At that point a universal basic income will be the only option other than walling off the majority of humanity in ghettoes. Totalitarian "poverty state" or post-scarcity socialism, take your pick. I say this as a somewhat-former libertarian, and partly out of libertarian sentiment. The totalitarian st…
It seems that you do not account for falling prices due to automation. And the cost of automated machines will fall too.
Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
#9It's not here yet , but automation able to fully replace human beings for a huge number of jobs will eventually come. At that point a universal basic income will be the only option other than walling off the majority of humanity in ghettoes. Totalitarian "poverty state" or post-scarcity socialism, take your pick. I say this as a somewhat-former libertarian, and partly out of libertarian sentiment. The totalitarian st…
It seems that you do not account for falling prices due to automation. And the cost of automated machines will fall too.
When the customer has zero, or at least zero in any sane sense, the price will always be too high.
The basic dichotomy of industrialization is that the workers of one factory is the customers of another.
Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)
#10It's not here yet , but automation able to fully replace human beings for a huge number of jobs will eventually come. At that point a universal basic income will be the only option other than walling off the majority of humanity in ghettoes. Totalitarian "poverty state" or post-scarcity socialism, take your pick. I say this as a somewhat-former libertarian, and partly out of libertarian sentiment. The totalitarian st…
Fortunately, the future is arriving slowly because so much time is wasted having silly debates on the Internet.
No need to worry about it in our lifetime.