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

Let’s Be Less Productive

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#61

Post by yummyfajitas »

tmoertel wrote: post #60
yummyfajitas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a finite number of things to do which create value and which humans are willing to pay for (just as is the case with horses). The only difference is that N_human > N_horse. The fact that N_machine < N_human doesn't mean that N_machine will always be less than N_human. I'm only pointing out that it is a fallacy to claim that it is.

In human society, there are a practically unbounded number of things that humans can do that other humans would be willing to pay for. The same cannot be said for horses, which have zero ability in human society to find new ways to create value for humans and thereby for themselves. To use your notation, when N_horse slumps toward zero, no horse can do anything about it. But when N_human declines, the displaced human…

In human society, there are a practically unbounded number of things that humans can do that other humans would be willing to pay for.

Could you explain this statement further? Why do you believe the number of things humans can do is best modeled as being infinite?

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#62

Post by tmoertel »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #61
tmoertel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In human society, there are a practically unbounded number of things that humans can do that other humans would be willing to pay for. The same cannot be said for horses, which have zero ability in human society to find new ways to create value for humans and thereby for themselves. To use your notation, when N_horse slumps toward zero, no horse can do anything about it. But when N_human declines, the displaced human…

In human society, there are a practically unbounded number of things that humans can do that other humans would be willing to pay for. Could you explain this statement further? Why do you believe the number of things humans can do is best modeled as being infinite?

It's not infinite; it's practically unbounded, meaning it can be increased for a long as humans have an interest in increasing it.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#63

Post by eru »

dbingham wrote: post #37
vog wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> less efficient farms with out machines (or with fewer machines) or chemicals As far as I know, this is mostly about avoiding monocultures, about chemicals and about genetic manipulation. And maybe animal welfare. It never occured to me that this is about machines . Am I missing something?

Most of the machines used on a farm have to do with harvesting, planting or spraying chemicals. They require plants to be planted in monocultures in straight clean rows in order to work. If you move away from chemicals and row based monoculture you can't really use most farm equipment anymore.

But there will be an opportunity to use newer better machines / robots, that can cope with more complicated structures than monoculture.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#64

Post by ScottBurson »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #54
tmoertel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fallacy here is that machines “replace” humans. They don’t. They can displace humans from jobs, but the humans don’t disappear. The humans still exist and can still do all the things humans can do, including find ways to create value that other humans are willing to pay for. Horses, however, cannot. When horses are displaced from their “jobs,” they don’t have the option of finding other ways to create value for h…

There is a finite number of things to do which create value and which humans are willing to pay for (just as is the case with horses). The only difference is that N_human > N_horse. The fact that N_machine < N_human doesn't mean that N_machine will always be less than N_human. I'm only pointing out that it is a fallacy to claim that it is.

There is a finite number of things to do which create value and which humans are willing to pay for

Ridiculous.

This reminds me of the story of the patent commissioner in the late 1800s who suggested closing the patent office because everything had already been invented that could be.

We are on the cusp of an explosion in new ways for people to create value. I don't understand how someone who has been around HN as long as you have can't see that. Look at YC -- both the endless variety of startups it's funding, and the business itself, which was extremely creative in its inception. And that's just one nexus of activity; there are many.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#65

Post by yummyfajitas »

tmoertel wrote: post #62
yummyfajitas wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In human society, there are a practically unbounded number of things that humans can do that other humans would be willing to pay for. Could you explain this statement further? Why do you believe the number of things humans can do is best modeled as being infinite?

It's not infinite; it's practically unbounded , meaning it can be increased for a long as humans have an interest in increasing it.

Again, why do you believe this?

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#66

Post by tmoertel »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #65
tmoertel wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not infinite; it's practically unbounded , meaning it can be increased for a long as humans have an interest in increasing it.

Again, why do you believe this?

I believe it because the alternative – that humans cannot find new ways to create value for themselves – is harder to believe.

Assume that there is a point in time in which humans run out of ways to create value for themselves. If you were among the displaced masses, wouldn't you like to have work? Oops. We've just created a new way to create value: by helping you find work. Which contradicts our initial hypothesis.

In other words, the reason I believe that humans can create value for themselves for as long as they want is that the alternative requires me to believe things that are absurd.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#67

Post by ScottBurson »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #61
tmoertel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In human society, there are a practically unbounded number of things that humans can do that other humans would be willing to pay for. The same cannot be said for horses, which have zero ability in human society to find new ways to create value for humans and thereby for themselves. To use your notation, when N_horse slumps toward zero, no horse can do anything about it. But when N_human declines, the displaced human…

In human society, there are a practically unbounded number of things that humans can do that other humans would be willing to pay for. Could you explain this statement further? Why do you believe the number of things humans can do is best modeled as being infinite?

Because it is infinite. We have a kind of imagination and creativity that horses lack.

Look at the arts -- particularly the modern ones of music and filmmaking. Can you not see that there will always be room for songs and movies that say something truly new about the world we live in? I suppose you could wave your hands and say that's all the "content industry" and counts as only one "thing", but I don't think that's fair. Great (or even good) works of art enrich our lives in different ways. "Content" is not a single commodity, like gasoline, of which we only need a certain amount.

And it's obviously not limited to the arts. Every significant new Internet business changes the landscape, creating new opportunities for others.

The silver lining in the cloud of this recession, I think, is that collectively we have a lot more free time. As the OP suggests, perhaps some of this would be well spent in face-to-face interactions. But you can also see people being forced by circumstances to reach into themselves and come up with new ways to create value. Oh, they're on a small scale, mostly; I'm not saying everyone who sits down to write a novel is going to create something as successful as Harry Potter. But they are new.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#68

Post by yummyfajitas »

ScottBurson wrote: post #67
yummyfajitas wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In human society, there are a practically unbounded number of things that humans can do that other humans would be willing to pay for. Could you explain this statement further? Why do you believe the number of things humans can do is best modeled as being infinite?

Because it is infinite. We have a kind of imagination and creativity that horses lack. Look at the arts -- particularly the modern ones of music and filmmaking. Can you not see that there will always be room for songs and movies that say something truly new about the world we live in? I suppose you could wave your hands and say that's all the "content industry" and counts as only one "thing", but I don't think that's…

Can you not see that there will always be room for songs and movies that say something truly new about the world we live in?

No, I can't see this. I think it quite likely that fairly quickly, we will reach the point where existing art is sufficient to satisfy most people. At some point, the quantity of good art will be vastly larger than the amount of consumption any human can do in a lifetime.

And even if this is false, what happens when machines do just as good a job at creating art as humans do? Do you believe some sort of "meta-art" exists that machines will not be able to perform?

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#69

Post by mahyarm »

jeffool wrote: post #2

The thought of eschewing productivity makes me cringe instantly. But that said, I worry he's not wrong about some things. Our economies don't seem to be growing fast enough to negate the downsides of things like automation. Rather than slow down productivity, which surely few other nations would do, wouldn't it serve us better in the long run to do a better job of splitting up the work between capable hands? In that…

The problem is one more practiced 40 hour worker is less overhead, cheaper and usually more productive than two 21 hour workers.

Re: Let’s Be Less Productive

#70

Post by ScottBurson »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #68
ScottBurson wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is infinite. We have a kind of imagination and creativity that horses lack. Look at the arts -- particularly the modern ones of music and filmmaking. Can you not see that there will always be room for songs and movies that say something truly new about the world we live in? I suppose you could wave your hands and say that's all the "content industry" and counts as only one "thing", but I don't think that's…

Can you not see that there will always be room for songs and movies that say something truly new about the world we live in? No, I can't see this. I think it quite likely that fairly quickly, we will reach the point where existing art is sufficient to satisfy most people. At some point, the quantity of good art will be vastly larger than the amount of consumption any human can do in a lifetime. And even if this is fa…

At some point, the quantity of good art will be vastly larger than the amount of consumption any human can do in a lifetime.

Oh, I think we passed that point a while ago. I certainly don't have time for all the art I would like to experience. But: so what? Just because a given piece of art finds a relatively small audience, that doesn't mean it's not valuable to those people. We have 7 billion people on this planet now. If you release a music album, and you get .0004% of the world's population to pay $5 each for it, that's $140k, which after production expenses should be enough for you to eat for a year. Tweak the numbers if you like, but we're still looking at needing less than one person in 10^5 to pay for your album in order for you to make a living. If you reach one in 10^4, you're doing well.

Do you believe some sort of "meta-art" exists that machines will not be able to perform?

Yes, actually, I do. Machines will never possess original creativity.

I can't prove this to you. We'll just have to wait and see. But there certainly aren't any counterexamples to be found yet.

Post reply on HN