[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.