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

The third great wave

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: The third great wave

#41

Post by InclinedPlane »

mercer wrote: post #21

Apologies for asking a question unrelated to the message of the article, but I'm a bit confused by the use of 'discomfited' in the first sentence. From my understanding, 'discomforted' seems more accurate, and is a more commonly used word anyways. Do I misunderstand the difference between discomfit and discomfort, or did they use the wrong word? EDIT: I suppose it might just be a matter of wanting to come across soph…

Discomfit means to make uneasy, discomfort means to make uncomfortable, physically. They are not the same word and do not mean the same thing.

Re: The third great wave

#42

Post by dredmorbius »

A better breakdown of economic waves / technological transitions comes from Robert Ayres, see his "Technological Transformations and Long Waves", February 1989:

http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/RR-89-001....

Ayres defines five technological transformations. The period of most significant change came with the third, spanning roughly 1870-1890 (with further refinement of major inventions since). I'd argue that the rate of transformation has slowed since.

1. ~1775: cotton textiles, iron, and steam.

2. ~1825: railroads and steamships, telegraph.

3. 1870-1890: steel, coal-tar chemistry & dyes, petroleum, sewing machines & bicycles, internal combustion engines, electrical light & power, telephone, automobiles, photography & cinema.

4. 1930-1950: Petrochemicals, synthetics, plastics, pharmaceuticals, communications -- radio, TV, microwaves, solid-state electronics & computers, aircraft & transportation.

5. 1975-present: Ill-defined. Slowing innovation, growing economy, declining industrial activity in the US, growing prevalence of computers.

Note that Ayres was writing in 1989, immediately prior to the emergence of the Internet and World Wide Web. Though these have revolutionalized information access and communications, their overall influence on everyday life has been less profound.

Re: The third great wave

#43

Post by SnacksOnAPlane »

chroma wrote: post #8
thrownaway0000 wrote: post #2

The one thing a magazine like The Economist won't dwell on is the wars that these sorts of disruptions have triggered in the past. Wars like the French and American revolutions were fueled by an upheaval in weaponry and technology that rendered arrangements like feudalism obsolete. Primitive phalanx and cavalry style engagements could not suppress ordinary commoners anymore, if they had enough muskets and gun powder.…

What's next? Drones. No matter how strong one's industrial base, warfare has always been limited by the number of boots on the ground. Eventually, one side sees enough body bags (or simply runs out of draft-eligible men) and disengages. There will be no flag-draped coffins to discourage a nation with a fully automated army. War will become a purely financial drain. As technology advances and drives drone costs to the…

As usual, Simpsons did it:

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you. -- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"

Re: The third great wave

#44

Post by rjtavares »

dredmorbius wrote: post #42

A better breakdown of economic waves / technological transitions comes from Robert Ayres, see his "Technological Transformations and Long Waves", February 1989: http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/RR-89-001.... Ayres defines five technological transformations. The period of most significant change came with the third, spanning roughly 1870-1890 (with further refinement of major inventions since). I'd ar…

> Note that Ayres was writing in 1989, immediately prior to the emergence of the Internet and World Wide Web. Though these have revolutionalized information access and communications, their overall influence on everyday life has been less profound.

Couldn't disagree more. The impact of computers was huge but it was mainly in making more efficient the stuff that we were already doing (that's why all the big players benefited from it). What we're witnessing with the Internet since the 2000s is a paradigm shift that can wipe out entire industries (for example with digital distribution, peer to peer and sharing economy).

Re: The third great wave

#45

Post by jmcmichael »

jerf wrote: post #35
authatheist wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draft-eligible men, huh? You say it like it's something men would want. "I'm eligible for being shipped overseas to kill or be killed. Yay for me." You're worried about what drones will do to warfare? Imagine you're a psychopath ruler of say, 320 million people, you have a massive fleet of killer drones at your disposal and you're electronically monitoring everything your subjects do. There's an old piece of parchmen…

"even after you've completely destroyed the economy.... Can you think of ways to use your fleet of killer drones for maintaining your position in power?" It is worth pointing out something that a few modern-day tyrants have already discovered to various degrees, which is that the tools of modern oppression require modern economies to keep functioning. If the economy is "completely destroyed", the drones aren't workin…

There's nothing preventing the inputs required to keep the drones going - power generation, parts, repair, etc. - being automated exactly the same way as every other facet of our economy is being automated.

Re: The third great wave

#47

Post by snowwrestler »

Animats wrote: post #4

This is a poor article about an important subject. A more useful way to look at it is to make lists of jobs humans can do, and those which machines can do better. Over time, the second column grows. The first column, not so much. What's different this time is that computers are so general purpose, and so cheap. If a computer can do it at all, it can do it more cheaply than a human.

I think this type of analysis is blind to new jobs that neither humans nor robots are doing now.

For example, right now only humans can do complex computer programming, whereas machines do most farming.

But if you went back to the time when quite a few people were employed as farmers, they would have no concept of what computer programming is, or how an economy could value and reward such skills.

They wouldn't know to put it in either column, so they too would feel terror at the idea of machines taking their jobs, because they could not possibly know about the new industries that drive job growth today.

Likewise, I would not bet against the possibility that new industries and jobs will be made possible in the future by automation that is being built today.

I'll hazard one guess: personalized genetic consulting. Genetics are incredibly complex, incredibly powerful, and highly personal. Given the right advances in computing technology, biotech automation, and energy, it could be possible to employ millions of people as a new kind of service provider--one who analyzes your personal genetics and crafts highly personalized plans to optimize your health. Basically, a biological analog to our modern concept of a financial advisor (which is itself a fairly recent development for most people).

edit: clarification

Re: The third great wave

#48

Post by dllthomas »

snowwrestler wrote: post #47
Animats wrote: post #4

This is a poor article about an important subject. A more useful way to look at it is to make lists of jobs humans can do, and those which machines can do better. Over time, the second column grows. The first column, not so much. What's different this time is that computers are so general purpose, and so cheap. If a computer can do it at all, it can do it more cheaply than a human.

I think this type of analysis is blind to new jobs that neither humans nor robots are doing now. For example, right now only humans can do complex computer programming, whereas machines do most farming. But if you went back to the time when quite a few people were employed as farmers, they would have no concept of what computer programming is, or how an economy could value and reward such skills. They wouldn't know t…

There is a contextual difference, at least, between betting on there not being new opportunities available, and trying to avoid relying on new opportunities being consistently available. Even so, an interesting post - upvoted.

Re: The third great wave

#49

Post by dllthomas »

girvo wrote: post #26
1457389 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is around when they start giving it away, in the hope that the enhanced livelihoods they generate frees the next generation of entrepreneurs to create even better uses for their capital. At some point we get The Culture. Or so the hopeful prognosis goes...

> At some point we get The Culture Having recently read the entire series, I'm of two minds when it comes to that scenario. Part of me thinks that it can't come fast enough, but the other part knows that without faster than light travel it's nearly impossible; without a way of gaining more space to live in, pressures on living space will become the source of our conflict even if the capitalist economy as we know it t…

That assumes we keep growing at O(n^3). Certainly we're doing that now, and may well continue, but it's not clear to me that it's guaranteed. Certainly there are places where the birth rate is below replacement.

Re: The third great wave

#50

Post by jerf »

jmcmichael wrote: post #45
jerf wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"even after you've completely destroyed the economy.... Can you think of ways to use your fleet of killer drones for maintaining your position in power?" It is worth pointing out something that a few modern-day tyrants have already discovered to various degrees, which is that the tools of modern oppression require modern economies to keep functioning. If the economy is "completely destroyed", the drones aren't workin…

There's nothing preventing the inputs required to keep the drones going - power generation, parts, repair, etc. - being automated exactly the same way as every other facet of our economy is being automated.

If we're to the point where that level of automation has been achieved, it will not be drones in the sky that are your biggest problem. I'm sticking in the forseeable future here, not near-Singularity future.
Post reply on HN