Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

baatz.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#41

Post by tangent128 »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #30

Let's suppose for a moment that we accept the thesis that due to automation, there won't be much work for humans in the future. Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new low…

Even if you embrace a lower population target, you still have to deal with the billions of people already here.

Enough people want to leave a biological legacy, so halving population each generation seems optimistic. (yes, many people don't want children at all, but many that do also want their child to benefit from having a sibling. I will assume these numbers cancel out.)

So it will take centuries to get down to the "low millions" range, even longer if lifespan extension pans out.

Automation, meanwhile, is already happening, and the current wave is more likely to be felt in a span of decades rather than centuries. Unless you count "starving in the streets" as a "natural die off", redistribution is going to be needed regardless.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#42

Post by eli_gottlieb »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #30

Let's suppose for a moment that we accept the thesis that due to automation, there won't be much work for humans in the future. Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new low…

>Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new lower-population equilibrium.

Because we value people's lives and happiness, so "You're unemployed now, please die quietly" is actually only slightly less unacceptable than "You're unemployed now, we'll take you out behind the chemical sheds and shoot you." It's the misery and death we take chief issue with, and only a little the violence.

> And that's even before we consider the fundamental unfairness of redistribution

You mean the fundamental unfairness of forcibly giving over the vast majority of the Earth's spoils to a tiny minority who don't care about anyone but themselves? Because if you don't, we disagree on the definition of "unfairness".

> If (and it's a big if) automation is really going to put billions of people out of productive work, then the only sustainable answer to that is fewer people. Embrace it.

We can stabilize the population for ecological purposes just fine while keeping the non-parents happy and healthy for their entire natural lives (or even well beyond that).

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#43

Post by eli_gottlieb »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #38
jal278 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making an assumption that the purpose of humanity is to work to create wealth. That's a very narrow view of our potential. Many would view human flourishing more through the lens of creativity, relationships, and meaningful work (which may not be economically productive). While I do believe that smaller populations may be more desirable, the logical conclusion of your line of thinking would be that once we aut…

That assumes it's possible to automate everything that creates wealth (I'm using "wealth" in the author's extremely broad sense; it does not mean "money"). It sounds like you're saying it isn't, and I agree. That is, the optimal human population will never be zero.

"Optimal human population of zero" seems like a contradiction-in-terms. For whom is it optimal to have a human population of zero? Surely not for the humans, and since we're the ones who exist, we draw up the criteria.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#44

Post by dragonwriter »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #30

Let's suppose for a moment that we accept the thesis that due to automation, there won't be much work for humans in the future. Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new low…

> Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new lower-population equilibrium.

Because in practice that doesn't work: natural population growth is inversely correlated with the strength of social safety nets; if you want to negative natural population growth to move toward a lower population, you need more, not less, redistributive policies by which those who profit the most from the structure of society support those who don't to get there.

If you want to get to a "lower population equilibrium" and avoid taxing those at the top more to achieve it "naturally", you aren't going to be able to be that passive about it.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#45

Post by eli_gottlieb »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #40

I think the whole question shows that people are thinking wrong. Think of a society/civilization spending people. Oh, we can automate much of agriculture? Great; we don't have to spend 90% of our people on growing food. Now we can spend them on factory jobs, and our society becomes better off. Now we don't have to spend so many people in factories? That's a good thing, too - we can spend those people on more producti…

But human idleness is the goal! Working, for most people, is a bunch of miserable drudgery.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#46

Post by dasil003 »

melling wrote: post #37
dasil003 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How old are you? The social unrest is going to come way before people are walled off in ghettoes. If, like me, you are a programmer earning 6 figures, you may not feel rich,but you are certainly perceived that way by the increasing number who are struggling.

Are these the same people who ignored all the warnings? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo Bought cheap stuff from Walmart so middle class manufacturing jobs were sent overseas? Refused to get a STEM education so we're required to import 100,000 engineers ever year? Didn't develop a better immigration plan so now we have 11 million undocumented people, many who will work for far less because life is better here…

Blaming the individual for emergent economic phenomena with a finger-wag and an I-told-you-so will do little to keep the pitchforks away from your door.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#47

Post by melling »

dasil003 wrote: post #46
melling wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are these the same people who ignored all the warnings? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo Bought cheap stuff from Walmart so middle class manufacturing jobs were sent overseas? Refused to get a STEM education so we're required to import 100,000 engineers ever year? Didn't develop a better immigration plan so now we have 11 million undocumented people, many who will work for far less because life is better here…

Blaming the individual for emergent economic phenomena with a finger-wag and an I-told-you-so will do little to keep the pitchforks away from your door.

The idea is for people to learn from past mistakes. I've identified some of them. We should take a deep dive to understand what we've done wrong and what can be done to fix the problems.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#48

Post by marcosdumay »

cwb wrote: post #25
mcguire wrote: post #18

" I hope I have been able to convince you that the Luddite fallacy is not a fallacy and that this will have significant economic and social implications. " I'm sorry, did you actually make an argument? All I could find was some un-supported assertions.

No, not for it having significant economic and social implications, that's more a corollary of employment rate decreasing -- I'll change that sentence. The argument for the Luddite fallacy not being a fallacy was that humans have so far been able to compete with technology, but that we're fast losing that edge and when that happens things really are different this time. Does that make sense?

That's an assertion, not an argument. The article also does not support it in any way (what would turn it into an argument). Thus, I'll have to agree with the GP, in that it is an unsupported assertion.

It's an assertion that I happen to agree with, but not because of this article.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#49

Post by AnimalMuppet »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #45
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #40

I think the whole question shows that people are thinking wrong. Think of a society/civilization spending people. Oh, we can automate much of agriculture? Great; we don't have to spend 90% of our people on growing food. Now we can spend them on factory jobs, and our society becomes better off. Now we don't have to spend so many people in factories? That's a good thing, too - we can spend those people on more producti…

But human idleness is the goal! Working, for most people, is a bunch of miserable drudgery.

Even accepting your premise (which I'm not sure that I do), that still doesn't disprove my point. When farm workers went into factories, we got a bunch of stuff like cars, dishwashers, and refrigerators. That means that I can go to the store less often, and I don't have to walk there when I go, and I don't have to wash the dishes myself each night. We gained a bunch of idleness from that - but we couldn't have done so without moving people from farms to factories.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#50

Post by fastandfurryous »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #30

Let's suppose for a moment that we accept the thesis that due to automation, there won't be much work for humans in the future. Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new low…

Why is redistribution unfair? There have been hundreds of years of theft, violence and political misgivings against labor to get to the point where, as a class, labor is neutered against having a chance to have a piece of the pie they built for industrialists and owners.

So why is it suddenly unfair to suggest redistribution?

Why are the deaths of billions of people somehow more just than a redistribution of wealth accumulated through centuries of ruthlessness?

> The vast majority of humans, if not literally every last one, will be much wealthier.

What makes you think that there would be any wealth made available for those who are not owners of wealth producing businesses? This is a serious question, because it is the same problem your solution is trying to fix.

> We need to accept that and adjust to it, not fight it with gimmickry and theft

Or we can recognize that the current state of affairs was brought upon by years of gimmickry and theft by a slim margin of people against the whole. If you rely on trading your time for money, you are not part of that slim margin.

Honest question: where do you think you'd be in this situation? On the side of vast wealth holders who will welcome you with open arms into their enclaves where a multibillion dollar net worth is required? Or rotting with the rest of us who rely on programming a computer to pay the bills?

This reads like an earnest Modest Proposal and efficiency porn mashup.

Post reply on HN