h a l f b a k e r yThis product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
"The Luddite's Paradox"
An idiom for new technology taking jobs away, but then better providing for the needs of those newly un-employed as a result. | |
Referred to this in an earlier post, needs to be amplified.
An example would be robots taking away work from farmers by doing all the farming work, but providing those un-employed farmers with food.
Lots of stores are closing, but the new system of Amazon providing everything much cheaper without
you having to spend time going out to get it is in many ways just a more efficient system.
It's a simplified expression for there being less jobs, but less need for jobs as the new technologies provide for the civilizations needs, even those who have been left unemployed by that technology.
And to be clear, it's not necessarily a conclusion as much as a proposition to be evaluated. "Is this technology ruining society by eliminating jobs or are we looking at the luddite's paradox in this particular situation?"
[link]
|
| |
Really the issue isn't one of man vs machine so much as man vs other greedier men (& women) who don't want to share the financial benefits of automation with the general population. |
|
| |
What [a1] said. Not that I'm not going to be sucked into it like a hard drink into the eager, soft, moist, warm mouth of an alcoholic. Or something like that. |
|
| |
// Really the issue isn't one of man vs machine so much as man vs other greedier men (& women) who don't want to share the financial benefits of automation with the general population.//
That's not really a fair way of looking at it. Money is only tokens. It's the distribution of wealth that's at issue. Don't get me wrong, I think the rich are personally using way more wealth than ethics dictates. But at least half of it is them controlling the wealth as opposed to hoarding and/or wasting it. And even as it sits in their control much of it helps the poor. You can't ignore the industrial revolutions and lifting out of poverty of three billion people. |
|
| |
//this is not an invention// |
|
| |
Are new idioms not a thing? How come there’s a category for it? |
|
| |
The idea is to save some time discussing the subject by clarifying what the quandary, question, debate is with a short two word description. |
|
| |
a1, put this age old quandary on the table without using this suggested phrase. Let’s count the words you’ll need to get this paradox across clearly. |
|
| |
You don't need to add the word paradox. You can just say whatever you wanted to say without this phrase and it will have the same meaning. Also you're trying to encode a belief into a language and that never works out well. Like this: |
|
| |
The Luddite's vindication: an idiom for new technology taking away jobs and society leaving whole generations to suffer needlessly rather than taking care of them before the benefits come around to everyone. |
|
| |
//You don't need to add the word paradox. You can just say whatever you wanted to say without this phrase and it will have the same meaning.// |
|
| |
So just say “Luddite’s” and everyone will know you’re referring to the question of whether technological advances in any given industry helps or hurts the displaced workers in the long run? |
|
| |
//Really the issue isn't one of man vs machine so much as man vs other greedier men (& women) who don't want to share the financial benefits of automation with the general population// |
|
| |
This would be a discussion created by someone using the "luddite's paradox" phrase. Again, this isn't a statement, it's a concept, right or wrong, which might be applicable in some cases and not in others. |
|
| |
//You can't ignore the industrial revolutions and lifting out of poverty of three billion people.// |
|
| |
And again, a statement that would be made in reference to the luddite's paradox supporting the contention. Except it's 14 words as opposed to 2.
So since there's no confusion about what the idiom means, let's see that concept put forward with less than the two words I've suggested. |
|
| |
And this is a concept that has great import in these times at the dawn of AI. It's not like saying "booger finger" so you can save time referring to Bob always picking his nose. |
|
| |
So you’re saying it IS something new I came up with? |
|
| |
Weird how you make these random nonsensical rules like “can’t specify an idea for consideration if you referred to earlier”. |
|
| |
A bone from a1?!? I’m shocked! Shocked I say! |
|
| |
How is this not m-f-d, naming then? |
|
| |
naming - specific names to give to people, pets, restaurants, top level domains, etc. are out of scope for the halfbakery. Whole naming schemes, tools to help with naming or exchange names, and specific names accompanying actual inventions are okay. |
|
| |
It illustrates a concept with a sort of shorthand condensation of the idea that might assist discussion of the situation. If I called it Bob it would be MFD. |
|
| |
//the new system of Amazon providing everything much cheaper// - that’s what Amazon would like you to believe |
|
| |
I think this is getting mistaken for advocacy. |
|
| |
It’s a clarification of a concept that might facilitate discussions of whether that concept is right or wrong in various situations where technology is eliminating jobs. |
|
| |
The luddite's paradox may or may not be applicable to any given situation where industry advancements such as automation or robots replace workers. |
|
| |
If this idea was about luddites walking around in famous airwear shoes, would it be renamed "The Luddite's Pair-a-docs"? |
|
| |
Might get more buns than this. |
|
| |
Gonna see if I can get this term into common parlance. Be a fun sideline hobby thingy. |
|
| |
Coincidentally I was just listening to somebody talking about how money is based on labor, or more accurately, the value of money. Value, which is assigned to various representative tokens like dollar bills or gold, is created by people, be it a castle, a field of turnips or kitchen products. What happens when robots do everything much better? Do we all basically all get rich because that labor requires no compensation? Just electricity and some programming? A squirt of lubricant now and then? (get your mind out of the gutter) |
|
| |
Anyway, I think that's the kind of discussion this might trigger if it cought on. |
|
| |
And here's a crazy thought: might currency of any kind be eliminated at some point because it has no meaning? Robots and automated systems do everything, why do we need to play this silly game of trading bits of paper, rocks or numbers in a computer? |
|
| |
In a true post-scarcity economy we all too easily become redundant I fear. |
|
| |
I'm wondering how much the industrialized society rules affecting the worth of a person (determined by how much they can contribute to the economy) will be rendered obsolete. |
|
| |
We used to just be tribes of clever monkey people who figured out that sharp sticks allowed us to be king of the beasts. Will a society where the complicated systems are taken over by tech put us back in monkey mode? Will be revert to glorified protoplasm once all the challenges to survival are removed? |
|
| |
Or will be use the opportunity to advance to a higher level not being constrained by the struggle for survival? |
|
| |
Maybe we'll split like life usually does. One portion of humanity goes one way one goes the other. |
|
| |
We are -in- the post-scarcity economy -right now-. Manufactured stuff is basically valueless because there is so much of it and it is produced in vast quantities basically pretty autonomously. There is more than enough food and shelter and the necessities of life for everyone. |
|
| |
As you can see these riches have been shared equitably around the world over the past 50 years so that every human in the world has enough to eat and have a pleasant (though not excessive) quality of life, without having to work more than a couple of hours a week, thus proving that Post Scarcity Economists are correct. |
|
| |
Again, this was a concept to foment discussion, it's clearly being taken as a stance on the subject. |
|
| |
So since this has successfully triggered a discussion like it was supposed to, I'll give my two cents. |
|
| |
There'll probably be instances of both good and bad regarding workers. The impact to the arts is certainly concerning, but at the same time I've never seen such amazing talents from the people due to them being able to get large audiences simply by being good, something not possible before. The interest in human art is still thriving because I believe human art appreciation is derived from mating / social status instincts. |
|
| |
I'm cautiously optimistic. The path forward always has potential pitfalls but we managed to survive nuclear proliferation so far, I think we'll probably survive computer generated music as well. |
|
| |
We survived Kanye just fine. |
|
| |
//As you can see these riches have been shared equitably around the world over the past 50 years so that every human in the world has enough to eat and have a pleasant (though not excessive) quality of life, without having to work more than a couple of hours a week, thus proving that Post Scarcity Economists are correct// |
|
| |
Laying the satire on a bit thick, aren't we? |
|
| |
Good satire is spread very thick. |
|
| |