|
|
|
|
|
|
by californical
1202 days ago
|
|
|
This is like saying in 1700 that the invention of farming automation will displace 90%+ of farmers, what ever will they do? Automation is helpful, but it’s also scary. I guarantee that nobody 300 years ago thought that many of the 90%+ of displaced farmers would end up sitting in front of screens, moving data around. And I also guarantee that farmers in the 1700s were just as tired and sick as the driving industry today. Yeah it’ll suck for the people who don’t/can’t adapt. But the world that is created by removing unnecessary labor ends up being better for everyone eventually. Should we deprive the people of the future from the technology of never needing to drive, just because the transition is scary? |
|
|
The transition will not be scary: it will be criminal. The governments and general policy decisional factors are so out of touch it's laughable, just look at the French government as they try to raise the retirement age to 64 [1].
† Because this is the crux of the matter: are we able to build a civilization where everyone is an owner, or will only the few of the fewest be the owners. And today, for instance, only those with 50 million USD and above are owners [2], because first of all you must own your life, and if you can't afford a lifesaving $3.5 million gene therapy [3] if you need it (not to mention a 100 USD eye surgery), you don't own your life.
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230309-french-young-peo...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high-net-worth_individua...
[3] https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230215/life-savin...