Nostr Web Client

Farmers can use tractors to make their operations more efficient.

A truck driver can’t leverage a self driving truck, he will just be out of a job.

Faster and cheaper stuff shouldn’t come at the expense of a healthy society where people have dignified jobs and a purpose.

Guy Swann 10mo ago 💬 1

It literally doesn’t. Your lack of an imagination doesn’t change that.

And your comparison uses two completely different groups either without realizing it or by trying to dodge the issue. I’m not talking about farmers, I’m talking about the millions who *worked in farms* who were displaced by tractors.

My example has absolutely zero fundamental difference from the conditions of today and Ai. To need fewer people to do something is the entire purpose of society. It does not make anyone poorer, it only changes what people do.

Example: you think the internet can even exist is a world where we need 90% of the population working on farms? It can’t. Tractors ALLOWED the internet to exist by freeing people up and providing food at vastly lower cost.

Better

Technology

Doesnt

Create

Poverty

Just

Because

You

Can’t

Imagine

The

Future

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Guy Swann 10mo ago 💬 1

I don’t mean this to sound targeted at you, btw. Rereading it sounds like I’m attacking you for being stupid or something and that wasn’t the intent. Just getting ranty

Guy Swann 10mo ago 💬 1

Just for the record I’m not saying I can imagine the future either, I’m saying it’s practically impossible to do so, but our lack of an image doesn’t change the nature of markets and production.

Of course no one in the 1900s could imagine that all the people put out of work would eventually be working to sustain a global electronic communication system and eventually a place switching digital network that could provide practically any service that people desired at their whim… but that’s what happened nonetheless and tractors made it possible, they didn’t “make farm workers poor.”

DRE 10mo ago

My point was that not all technological breakthroughs disrupt equally. Someone that was a carriage driver could adapt to the invention of cars and become a taxi driver. A self-driving car completely removes the driver from his profession.

A secretary can go from using a typewriter to using a computer. An AI chatbot completely removes the secretary from the equation.

And sure, these people can go and find some other job, but finding a new profession is more disruptive than learning how to integrate a new tool into your profession.

We are not passive bystanders. We are the main character and should prioritize societal well-being over higher GDP even if it means goods and services will be a little more expensive. Faster and cheaper comes at a cost.

This is a tangential point to the UBI discussion, but still relevant IMO.