[klank]

I don't think it's as easy as hand waving it away as "your competitor's labor". Your competitors labor is your community, it's people. I believe we all have an ethical responsibility to that.

For the points you brought up, why is stagnation for the purposes of upholding an ethical position a bad thing?

And yes, by definition, worrying about ethical responsibility would lead to ethical issues. That's the whole point.

[vasco]

So should we all be farming and collecting berries? Most advancements since have put people out of jobs in "competitors" that didn't adapt. Still the unemployment rate isn't 99.9%. Yet we displaced whole industries many times over the centuries. Obviously people move to better jobs and find other things to do. There's nothing particularly good about sitting on a computer denying people insurance all day, why not have a computer do it?

[klank]

If it is a choice between progress unfettered by concern for your "competitor's labor" or farming berries, I choose berries.

However, I believe there's a middle ground and endeavor to find it. Based on your response it doesn't appear as though you believe a middle ground exists.

[vasco]

Choosing berries (ie not progressing to "protect jobs" - no jobs are protected, we have close to full employment worldwide) is choosing avoidable deaths. Child mortality rate in a "choose berries" world is just one example that makes me triggered by those that have that position.

And you get nothing in return for protecting those jobs, as I said, the world is "employed" and we've killed many industries already over the centuries. You're protecting nothing.

[klank]

I believe in, and am searching for the middle ground. I am not interested in discussing hypothetical extremes. I do not believe they are relevant.

[DiggyJohnson]

I think the middle ground is not being concerned about your competitor’s labor, to use my original phrasing.