[owenmarshall]

Once again sethf hits the nail on the head. The response is entirely up to us.

I'm not personally optimistic: this country has a deeply held Puritanical work ethic, and even if we get past that we have a real nasty habit of not liking to give any government benefits to "those people".

But if we can get past that...

[TeMPOraL]

> Once again sethf hits the nail on the head. The response is entirely up to us.

I disagree. Short of halting the progress of robotics and software, there seems to be no way to avoid the continued automation of things, and economy, politicians and social habits will have to follow and adapt, like they always did. More and more I'm buying into the view that it's the technological progress that drives cultural change, not the other way around.

I recently found an interesting article touching this topic:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with-fle...

[owenmarshall]

>I disagree.

I'm not sure with what, we're both saying the same thing. ;-)

I haven't read too much of it yet but your link looks very interesting, thanks!

[TeMPOraL]

Well I understood that Seth was saying that politicians can decide to stop job automation or let it happen. I believe that they can't; they have far too little influence to stop a force this strong.

[owenmarshall]

That's not how I understood it, and not at all how I think he intended it to be read.

His statement is that a question that sets "automation means less jobs which is bad!" against "automation means more and better jobs which is good!" is improper. Automation will change the job landscape - that's an objective statement, and we've been living it so far.

Whether we make it a positive change and end up with Russell's "idle utopia" or a negative change and end up in some horrific dystopia is entirely up to our response.

[zo1]

We're not going to get past that because not everyone agrees with you.

At least, not until you realize that forcing people to do what you believe is right is fundamentally immoral. No matter how noble your ideals, and how rainbow-colored your utopian future is "if we can get past that".

It's sad that you can both simultaneously hold noble ideals of taking care of the needy, while thinking that the only way to do it is by violently and immorally forcing others to help you do it, whether they want to or not.

[owenmarshall]

> At least, not until you realize that forcing people to do what you believe is right is fundamentally immoral.

That's the funny thing about "moral foundations" - what's fundamentally immoral in yours may be a cornerstone of mine, what I find barbaric is a cost of doing business in someone else's...

[malchow]

Question: What do you think "government benefits" are? As in, in what do they consist? What is their form? Of what stuff are they? Are they corporeal or spiritual? If corporeal, whence did they come? Who created them? Are they extracted from a mine? Built by a machine? Contributed by working men?

[owenmarshall]

Fun soliloquy - I guess I'll play along.

> What do you think "government benefits" are?

Broadly speaking, the transfer of some good from the government to its citizens. Today we talk about it in terms of essentials (food, shelter, etc.) But in a world where most (if not all) tasks are handled by automatons, perhaps that's too reductive.

> Who created them? Are they extracted from a mine? Built by a machine? Contributed by working men?

Today you & I; perhaps tomorrow, not so much!