[morrad]

> automation is intended to eliminate [jobs]

Automation has the potential to eliminate jobs, but also has the potential to allow much more work to be done by a single person, or allowing that person to do the same work with less effort.

Perhaps I'm overly simplifying your words, but I don't think automation is inherently "evil". Like all tools or techniques, they may be used toward good or bad ends.

[michaelochurch]

One of the big problems with engineers is that they like solving problems, but sticking around to debate how those solutions will be used is "politics" and they say, "I hate that shit". Thus it's easy for the psychopaths who run this society to come in and use automation for bad (depriving others of participation, rather than distributing the benefits).

[Crito]

Well, I wouldn't say that automation is evil, and automation certainly can be used primarily to scale processes, but I think that if a process is already running at capacity (say, you are already producing more wheat than the world needs), then automation will tend to reduce prices (or at least costs) and reduce jobs. The end-game is total automation (hopefully with everybody enjoying the fruits of that past labor, Star Trek style.)

I think that automation in general is a worthwhile endeavor, but we need to be mindful of the downsides and modify our society as we implement more automation to ensure that we are not causing undue harm. I believe that various forms of social safety-nets will become essential as we march towards automation's logical conclusion.

[stephenbez]

So if we used to build a road by having a group of 50 guys with shovels, should we just ignore the invention of the bulldozer so these men don't lose their jobs.

95% of Americans used to work in agriculture. Should we still all be farmers today because if we adapt technology then some of the farmers would lose their job?