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

Rethinking the Luddites

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#121

Post by fatherzine »

mulmen wrote: post #24
w_for_wumbo wrote: post #3

There's plenty of rhetoric about whether technology advancements will be a good thing or not. But I think that distracts from the core message, that the most important matter is not whether we use technology, but how we treat our fellow humans. By replacing labour with robots and not compensating them, you're sending a clear message that you don't respect people and the value that they bring. We have a mandate for us…

This is a nice sentiment but labor doesn’t create value in a world of robots. We need a radically different system of wealth allocation.

Or, we need a system in which labor intrinsically creates the lion share of value.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#122

Post by OkayPhysicist »

ta8645 wrote: post #62
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not entirely fair. The main downside Capitalism has in this discussion is that the wellbeing of the people is not even one of it's stated goals. You can argue all you like about Socialism being a failed ideology, or impossibly utopian, that's it's own conversation. But it makes the common welfare a stated goal to strive for. Capitalism does not. Capitalism's goal is to maximize the creation wealth by allowing…

> In contrast, Communism's stated goal is the achievement of a classless What good is a stated goal if the reality is the opposite? Capitalism may not have a lofty sounding goal to your ear, but the fair trade of goods and services is actually a pursuit in the betterment and empowerment of mankind. Of course, human nature gets in the way, and leads to corruption that needs to be constantly addressed and readdressed,…

It's not about lofty idealism. It's about central goals. Sometimes, even oftentimes, goals are failed to be met. But, when it comes time to sacrifice something, it's invariable that a side effect will be cut rather than the central goal.

Look at a company. The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company needs to choose between "make money" and something else, say, a commitment to not being evil, the company will choose "make money".

Capitalism does not have meeting basic human needs as a core goal. Capitalism's distribution of money to labor is a side effect, not a goal. It has the freedom of capital to amass capital as a core goal. Thus, if something needs to go, it's not going to be capital's ability to amass more capital.

As automation comes for more and more jobs, the demand for labor in general will fall. Capitalism, even in its most idealistic "a rising tide lifts all ships" form, does not care about those it doesn't need. If your preferred answer to "what do we do when human labor is no longer necessary" isn't "extinction", you can't rely on Capitalism as an ideology.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#123

Post by skulk »

ta8645 wrote: post #62
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not entirely fair. The main downside Capitalism has in this discussion is that the wellbeing of the people is not even one of it's stated goals. You can argue all you like about Socialism being a failed ideology, or impossibly utopian, that's it's own conversation. But it makes the common welfare a stated goal to strive for. Capitalism does not. Capitalism's goal is to maximize the creation wealth by allowing…

> In contrast, Communism's stated goal is the achievement of a classless What good is a stated goal if the reality is the opposite? Capitalism may not have a lofty sounding goal to your ear, but the fair trade of goods and services is actually a pursuit in the betterment and empowerment of mankind. Of course, human nature gets in the way, and leads to corruption that needs to be constantly addressed and readdressed,…

I don't think you're engaging with the GP's ideas in good faith. Yes, capitalism lifts people out of poverty at an unimaginable scale, but the GP's contention is that this is only _for the moment_. According to the GP, the end state of capitalism is a sudden, drastic drop in the labor class's material conditions (which probably looks a lot like societal collapse). Your contention that "But it's good now!" is exactly the kind of logic that GP is railing against.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#124

Post by nemo44x »

ehnto wrote: post #109
nemo44x wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be more companies making things and providing things than there are today because there’s more labor available. We can do the things that aren’t of higher necessity today.

To sell to who? If no one has income, who buys the things?

New businesses will form. Why wouldn't they? We have a ton of businesses that even 50 years ago no one would imagine. We can continue up the pyramid to more and more things that wouldn’t be possible or practical today.

Your mistake is you’re looking at a future world in todays state.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#125

Post by daniel_reetz »

cynicalsecurity wrote: post #9

I'm not observing a situation of people massively losing their jobs or losing money. If you do, feel free to share your experience. So far, the AI technology has been a nice toy/support for the people.

Respectfully, AI is a core issue in the strikes in Hollywood right now, and a whole industry has been out of work for months now.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#126

Post by msm_ »

Syonyk wrote: post #84
rossriley wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People bring the value that they generate for an economy. Once they can be replaced with AI/Robots then that labour can be reallocated further up the value chain which in turn makes our economies and culture richer and more productive. Imagine if we were all working 18 hour subsistence farming jobs now just to survive, it's ridiculous to argue that eschewing automation for anything is detrimental, it only serves to e…

> Imagine if we were all working 18 hour subsistence farming jobs now just to survive... Then you definitely shouldn't look at actual reports of time spent, leisure time, etc, in those eras. Because that's nothing at all what life was in the eras you're thinking of. How much of our modern time - work hours - do we spend to maintain the cars we take to work, and the large houses we were convinced to buy "as an investm…

I'm not sure I get your point. I don't own a car, and I rent my apartment. So... 0 in both cases? (unless vacuuming once a week counts as maintenance, then add a dozen minutes). I definitely don't feel like I have any significant burdens other than my paid job.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#127

Post by labrador »

phillipcarter wrote: post #116
labrador wrote: post #112

I like to imagine a world where people don't have to work or worry about health care. It's all done by AI and robots. People are free to pursue their hobbies and other interests. How would we treat each then? Would we still be in terrible conflict with hate and prejudice prevalent?

In the US at least, the imperative should be to create policy and systems that don't make healthcare completely unavailable for millions of people in the first place. AI and robots don't mean anything without access.

I'm imaging a world where everyone has health care and no one has to work. Would the world still be filled with turmoil and conflict?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#128

Post by quickthrower2 »

coolhand2120 wrote: post #14

People are happy to use tech like wix to build a web page because building web pages is hard. Virtually every designer, artist, writer, and musician, were all very happy to use wix even though it cost the jobs of legions of developers. “Finally I can do what these nerds can do without their help”. I really don’t see the difference.

You make a good point. However I think Wix's competitor was not developers. It's competitor was businesses just going without a website.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#129

Post by quickthrower2 »

lolinder wrote: post #6

This version of the Luddites is the one I was taught in my history classes—in both HS and college my teachers were careful to emphasize that the colloquial usage and the actual movement are only loosely related, and we discussed how the Luddites weren't rejecting technology per se so much as they were acting out of desperation to preserve their way of life. This is certainly something worth learning from today, and a…

Being a Luddite and a Dunce (John Duns Scotus) is not a bad thing.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#130

Post by hexage1814 »

Aunche wrote: post #50

> Today, the word “Luddite” is used as an insult to anyone resistant to technological innovation; it suggests ignoramuses, sticks in the mud, obstacles to progress. But a new book by the journalist and author Brian Merchant, titled “Blood in the Machine,” argues that Luddism stood not against technology per se but for the rights of workers above the inequitable profitability of machines. Just because Luddites were sy…

>They didn't care for the welfare of workers in general so much as they were looking out for themselves

This! It's the same deal with white collar workers complaining about AI just now, while ignoring previous automation, when it benefited them.

Post reply on HN