[notgood]

You know why we create software? To automate things, stuff that before required lot of accountants can be now down with software + one accountant. So we made accounting "cheaper" cutting a lot of jobs; should we stop making software because it makes labor cheaper? should we stop making robots because it makes labor cheaper? Fuck that; if socio-economics has a problem we need to find a solution that doesn't involve stopping how far and wide knowledge can be spread.

[YCode]

I got into a discussion about this recently. It seems like most of the time new technology and automation inherently creates less jobs than it depreciates.

Meanwhile, the population only goes up.

Assuming those two statements are true in a given economy, then this is going to become a major problem for society as the number of people drastically outmatches the number of (skilled?) jobs that need performed.

At a certain point we're going to have to find a new paradigm to replace our "compete for a job and you can earn a living" system or else find ourselves in a situation where the employer has all the power and the vast majority of people who can even find work endure terrible conditions.

[wolfgke]

> I got into a discussion about this recently. It seems like most of the time new technology and automation inherently creates less jobs than it depreciates.

> Meanwhile, the population only goes up.

That's why one should consider people who produce children as "evil-minded". There are few things that are similar as cruel as producing children who will have no place in society. Antinatalism for the win.

[YCode]

Sort of.

On the other hand, on a national or global scale having children is not optional.

If you want your species to continue, some people have to have children.

That said, I agree in that I believe contraception should be essentially free to anyone who wants it. There's simply no logical reason for society to bring unwanted and superfluous children into the world.

[wolfgke]

> If you want your species to continue, some people have to have children.

But only as many as society really needs (currently we have to many) and and only if there exist people that are willing to bail if the child will be unemployed (a risk that will increase with even more automatization).

[mej10]

Without children the human species will simply die. If that's your goal or an accepted side-effect of your goal, then Antinatalism makes sense.

If you don't want humanity to die, then it is far too simplistic and it would actually be wrong to not value people having children -- at least to some degree -- since as far as we know it is the only way for humanity to continue.

In reality, as with most things, there is a lot of grey area and difference of circumstance that factor into the morality of such a decision.

[jraedisch]

"Disrupting" is maybe the most popular reason for creating software. It is not the only reason though. There are others. Like enabling people to do/experience things that weren't possible before.

[denzil_correa]

The solution clearly isn't to stop making software but the solution also isn't to immediately replace all jobs by a machine. You have people who've worked towards a specialized skillet for most part of their life only to realize that this skill isn't needed anymore. In such situations, we need to come up with mechanisms to help people transition.