Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-09-2019, 01:28 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorsnak View Post
So you'll know to run away instead of standing to fight next time you see Royal Navy signal flags spelling out "England expects that every man will do his duty?"
Well I don't see the Royal Navy cruising up the Seine any time soon ; although now that you mention it with the looming hard Brexit crash perhaps we shall soon be regrettably forced to set up a new Continental System to stave off the hordes of refugees .
  #52  
Old 08-09-2019, 01:54 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post

I imagine how such a ban would work would be to take a look at the forecasted numbers of people put out of work by a given automation technology and weigh those numbers against the costs of retraining those people and/or providing them with monetary compensation via UBI. If the numbers of potentially displaced workers are so great on the former side of that equation, then the technology that displaces them would be banned.
the problem with this is that it doesn't look at the increase in production and quality of life that comes about.

If it takes 10 people a day to make a widget, and you make a machine that pumps out a widget an hour with one operator, you could say that you eliminated 9 jobs, but you could also say that you supplied the market with over a hundred more widgets a week, at a lower price. Most people that are against automation are not looking at that side of the equation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post

The most important thing is to protect my job, of course. Whatever I do should not be automated.
Then pick something that cannot be automated, or at least is hard enough to automate that it isn't going to be the low hanging fruit as our technology improves.
  #53  
Old 08-09-2019, 02:00 PM
boffking is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: New England
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
the problem with this is that it doesn't look at the increase in production and quality of life that comes about.

If it takes 10 people a day to make a widget, and you make a machine that pumps out a widget an hour with one operator, you could say that you eliminated 9 jobs, but you could also say that you supplied the market with over a hundred more widgets a week, at a lower price. Most people that are against automation are not looking at that side of the equation.
Keep in mind as well, that more widgets on the market likely mean more jobs in sales or distribution of them. So you really have eliminated less than 9 jobs.
  #54  
Old 08-09-2019, 03:00 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,117
Or more commonly, now that people are free to not make widgets, they can make other stuff. So now you still have the jobs and the widgets, but whatever else they can now make.

And of course, if they can now make things that make other things, like machine tools or better steel or whatever, everyone can now make more things, which means there could be even more jobs and more things.
  #55  
Old 08-09-2019, 03:18 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
As soon as I find the wifi cog, I'm switching to this.
The purpose of the difference engine was to automate the production of mathematical tables. So Tucker the Schmucker would ban them too.
  #56  
Old 08-09-2019, 03:21 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
This seems so contrary to typical conservative deregulatory mindset. I can't imagine many conservatives agreeing with this.
Remember, the Orange Asshole seems to think that if Apple moved its manufacturing to the US it would hire as many people as in the Chinese factories. Actually the factories would be so automated that there would be a few engineers and technicians and people supervising the line.

Not to mention that modern circuit board can't be built without automation. A lot of the discrete components are way too small to be placed by hand.

A better solution would be to ban Tucker Carlson.
  #57  
Old 08-09-2019, 03:27 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Remember, the Orange Asshole seems to think that if Apple moved its manufacturing to the US it would hire as many people as in the Chinese factories. Actually the factories would be so automated that there would be a few engineers and technicians and people supervising the line.

Not to mention that modern circuit board can't be built without automation. A lot of the discrete components are way too small to be placed by hand.

A better solution would be to ban Tucker Carlson.
I second that motion...can we ban him AND Trump, perhaps? Maybe we could automate Trump...I mean, I'm fairly sure even the stupidest machine ever could send out the tweets and crap that guy does. Not sure if we could make a robot that ugly though...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #58  
Old 08-09-2019, 03:28 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Not to mention that modern circuit board can't be built without automation. A lot of the discrete components are way too small to be placed by hand.
That's what they said about reloading thread spools in textile mills too. They had a solution, why can't we do the same?
  #59  
Old 08-09-2019, 03:29 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
That's what they said about reloading thread spools in textile mills too. They had a solution, why can't we do the same?
Just hire people with really tiny hands?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #60  
Old 08-09-2019, 03:39 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Just hire people with really tiny hands?
Well, we did just talk about automating Trump out of a job...
  #61  
Old 08-09-2019, 04:03 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Potential snark aside, this is kind of how I imagine an automation ban would work in practice. I guess I should be clear that I am not wholeheartedly endorsing the idea, but I am intrigued by it given that it is coming from such a prominent right wing pundit. Depending on the extent to which the automation-induced unemployment apocalypse actually materializes there will definitely be more broad receptivity to this general argument.
On the Connections show I linked to, James Burke points at that as Option 2: Selective Research Only.

Not a good choice because, for starters, who decides what is sociably desirable with new automation or tech? You? Me? and on what basis? Gut reaction? and that is often wrong if one is ignorant about the advances or research made before hand.

And speaking of guys like Carlson, their gut reaction when confronted with research that sounds useless or dumb at the beginning is often wrong or hopelessly ignorant. As a local non Carlson example showed, people that ignore that scientists also quantify an issue for very important reasons, could come to the wrong conclusion that it must be stupid for researchers to investigate an issue. lets say, investigate how many Russians die for consuming alcohol. ("Well duh! why should we waste money to re-discover the obvious thing that drinking more vodka kills more people?" <- what an ignorant would say)

Getting back to the issue at hand, one thing that guys like Carlson have trouble with is to check with proper experts, it seems that the experts they rely on are also "experts" that are being selected by lobbies or political groups that also ignore proper research and history, it is a very dangerous case of the blind leading the blind, and in this case, at a level that is bound to influence national policies.

Carlson needs to check other experts rather than the ones that just look at doom and gloom.


Autor, David H. (August 2015). “Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation“. Journal of Economic Perspectives.

Quote:
Automation does indeed substitute for labor—as it is typically intended to do. However, automation also complements labor, raises output in ways that lead to higher demand for labor, and interacts with adjustments in labor supply. Indeed, a key observation of the paper is that journalists and even expert commentators tend to overstate the extent of machine substitution for human labor and ignore the strong complementarities between automation and labor that increase productivity, raise earnings, and augment demand for labor.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-09-2019 at 04:05 PM.
  #62  
Old 08-09-2019, 04:52 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Depending on the extent to which the automation-induced unemployment apocalypse actually materializes there will definitely be more broad receptivity to this general argument.
Why not wait for this to actually happen, rather than ask about it when the unemployment rate is 4%?

It took about 100 years for Agriculture to go from 50% of the labor force to 3%, all of it due to automation, and none of it driving an unemployment apocalypse. 47% of the labor force was made unnecessary, and there was no apocalypse, now we're worried that cutting back on grocery store cashiers is going to break our economy?


Chronos had it absolutely right
Quote:
This is an idiotic idea, and Tucker Carlson is an idiot for proposing it.
  #63  
Old 08-09-2019, 05:16 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Chronos had it absolutely right
Except he used too many words.

Quote:
This is an idiotic idea, and Tucker Carlson is an idiot
That's better.
  #64  
Old 08-09-2019, 05:18 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,305
We should definitely ban automation. I don't understand how this is even a question. What do we have left if we automate everything? A bunch of automated things?
  #65  
Old 08-09-2019, 06:41 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
This answer seems so out there even for Carlson that I can't believe he's serious.
Not to defend that loathsomeness that is Carlson, but do we have a cite for him actually proposing this? When I search under Carlson and automation, all I find is his being concerned about the rise of automation and that nobody in the political sphere except Andrew Yang is talking about it, but don't see him making any such proposal (or any proposal for that matter) as a solution.
  #66  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:03 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Just hire people with really tiny hands?
Who never drink coffee. Can't do it with the jitters.
I know - really small Mormons!
  #67  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:33 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Not to defend that loathsomeness that is Carlson, but do we have a cite for him actually proposing this? When I search under Carlson and automation, all I find is his being concerned about the rise of automation and that nobody in the political sphere except Andrew Yang is talking about it, but don't see him making any such proposal (or any proposal for that matter) as a solution.
The Carlson position can be deduced by looking at what he did agree with Andrew Yang.

Jobs at severe risk from robot takeover - Tucker Carlson 3/1/19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocj3GKkzWeg
Quote:
CARLSON: You are one of the only people I have met honest about the effects of the de-industrialization. I remember in Washington, the idea was, they will all become computer programmers, and so everything is fine, but that didn’t happen.

My question is do we have to sit passively back and let this happen to the country?

YANG: Well, that’s why I’m running for President, Tucker. I think it would be insane to just sit back and watch this automation wave overtake our communities and our economy. So we are not ostriches. We can get our heads up out of the sand, and say, “Look, we get it. Artificial intelligence is real. Self-driving cars and trucks are being tested on the highways right now and we need to evolve.”

We need to actually start pushing the way we think of economic progress to include how our families are doing, how our children are doing, and things that would actually matter to the American people because GDP is going to lead us off a cliff.

You know, robot trucks — great for GDP, terrible for many, many American communities. So we need to get with the program and figure out how to actually make this economy work for people.

CARLSON: I sit with my jaw open. I agree with you so strongly. Let me ask you finally, why isn’t this a central question in the campaign of everybody running for President on any side, and why instead are they talking about issues that are really are kind of frivolous? Why aren’t they talking about this?

YANG: It’s a good question, Tucker. I mean, one of the reasons I’m running for President is to push this in the center of the mainstream agenda where every candidate should be talking about what we are going to do about the fact that we’re automating away the most common jobs in the economy right now.
As David H. Autor reported, sure, several sectors in the economy will be affected; but it will not be as sudden or a disaster for the vast majority of Americans. I would add that Yang can (and we all should) worry about the ones left behind by the new developments, but we should not fall for the 'it will be terrible for many, many American communities.' predictions regarding this issue.
  #68  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:30 AM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
I was listening to an episode of The Weeds podcast several weeks ago when one of the speakers pointed out that Tucker Carlson of all people had actually floated the idea of *banning* automation. I'll be honest in that I had never before even considered such idea; I've basically been operating under the assumption for years that the coming automation-induced unemployment explosion - while overblown in a lot of ways - is nonetheless largely unavoidable. Consequently, the idea of just banning the practice - or just establishing a line over which the robots cannot cross (so, for example, no self-driving trucks) - might actually yield more broad social benefits than downsides.

I.e. for all the talk of UBI being a way around the automation bubble - and it's a proposal that I support! - it is no coincidence that UBI's greatest proponents are all emanating from Silicon Valley; the tech sector has a vested interest in ensuring that the automation technologies that *it is inventing* do not spur a consequent crackdown on automation writ large. If we were to just ban automation, then the political issues surrounding UBI could be put to rest because the policy itself would not be necessary.

What say the Dope?
Absolutely not!

My job often involves working with small businesses, such as restaurants that hire minimum wage staff. They don't make a lot of money. These aren't greedy corporate titans. The owner draws income from the business after they have paid for of their expenses, and they sometimes make less money than their employees! If the business loses money, they have to get their money from elsewhere (sometimes shareholder loans, so they're living off of credit). I'm not a fan of this kind of extreme "solution".

We're not going to eliminate word processing programs, which eliminated a lot of secretary jobs. We're not going to eliminate dishwashers, which saves more water than washing dishes by hand. We're not going to eliminate email, which has damaged any business that transports paper (delivering Amazon packages aren't quite making up for this either). We are not going to eliminate online banking and ATMs, which together have reduced the need for tellers (and may be one reason tellers are now basically salespeople).

Just the other day I bought an ultrasonic cleaner for my contact lenses (these are gas permeable rigid and are very expensive). I have to wear these for a year, and while I've had no eye infections the lenses got cloudy from protein build-up. The lenses are so curved that I cannot get my (fat?) fingers to the center on the inner side, so ... I got an ultrasonic cleaner. That is an automated device, and I'm not going to sacrifice my vision over some nonsense. (Nor will I go to the optometrist to get them professionally cleaned once per week, as that's both expensive and inconvenient... and that's assuming they even offer that service.)
  #69  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:07 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,877
I think that just the fact that Ned Ludd Carson came up with the idea indicates that it is a wholly worthless idea.
  #70  
Old 08-10-2019, 05:12 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,117

" that


Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
The Carlson position can be deduced by looking at what he did agree with Andrew Yang.

Jobs at severe risk from robot takeover - Tucker Carlson 3/1/19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocj3GKkzWeg
WHAT? What Tucker says here is the same kind of hysterical "The robots are coming!" rhetoric we've been hearing everywhere, including by lots of people on this board and just about all of the candidates for President.

That's a far cry from, "We should ban all automation", or even "We should ban ANY automation." For all you know, what Tucker wants 'done' is a universal basic income. You can 'deduce' that position from the same set of quotes. That seems even more likely given that the person he's talking to thinks a universal income is an answer. and Tucker is agreeing with him on the potential problems of automation.

I went looking for the actual quote by Tucker, and I can't find it. Searches keep turning up this interview, and nothing else. So at this point, I'm going to call 'fake news', unless someone can cough up a sourced quote from him that says anything like "We should ban all automation."

If that quote doesn't exist, then someone decided to twist Tucker's words into a political hit, and we fell for it.

Quote:
As David H. Autor reported, sure, several sectors in the economy will be affected; but it will not be as sudden or a disaster for the vast majority of Americans. I would add that Yang can (and we all should) worry about the ones left behind by the new developments, but we should not fall for the 'it will be terrible for many, many American communities.' predictions regarding this issue.
The real danger is not automation, but polticians short-circuiting the adaptation process by providing a living to people displaced by it, thereby reducing their incentive to retrain and find other work.

Imagine if a universal income had been the response to the mechanization of agriculture. We'd probably still have a giant underclass of ex-farmers living on dessicated, defunct 'family farms' on subsistence wages. Because moving off the farm, getting an education, and living in a strange city was a hell of a lot harder transition than going from, say a city banker to a city programmer, or going from being a welder to being a pipefitter when robotic welders are introduced. But somehow, tens of millions of displaced farmers managed to find work.

Let's make sure we don't kill off the 'creative' aspect of creative destruction by incentivizing the unemployed to take the easy road.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 08-10-2019 at 05:13 PM.
  #71  
Old 08-11-2019, 12:54 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
WHAT? What Tucker says here is the same kind of hysterical "The robots are coming!" rhetoric we've been hearing everywhere, including by lots of people on this board and just about all of the candidates for President.

That's a far cry from, "We should ban all automation", or even "We should ban ANY automation." For all you know, what Tucker wants 'done' is a universal basic income. You can 'deduce' that position from the same set of quotes. That seems even more likely given that the person he's talking to thinks a universal income is an answer. and Tucker is agreeing with him on the potential problems of automation.

I went looking for the actual quote by Tucker, and I can't find it. Searches keep turning up this interview, and nothing else. So at this point, I'm going to call 'fake news', unless someone can cough up a sourced quote from him that says anything like "We should ban all automation."

If that quote doesn't exist, then someone decided to twist Tucker's words into a political hit, and we fell for it.
I see it as an exaggeration of what Tucker said, but remember: he said that he strongly agreed with Yang after he said that this would be "terrible for many, many American communities", and that is still a gross exaggeration IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The real danger is not automation, but polticians short-circuiting the adaptation process by providing a living to people displaced by it, thereby reducing their incentive to retrain and find other work.

Imagine if a universal income had been the response to the mechanization of agriculture. We'd probably still have a giant underclass of ex-farmers living on dessicated, defunct 'family farms' on subsistence wages. Because moving off the farm, getting an education, and living in a strange city was a hell of a lot harder transition than going from, say a city banker to a city programmer, or going from being a welder to being a pipefitter when robotic welders are introduced. But somehow, tens of millions of displaced farmers managed to find work.

Let's make sure we don't kill off the 'creative' aspect of creative destruction by incentivizing the unemployed to take the easy road.
We had this conversation before, as I pointed then any universal income has to have a condition that it would happen as an incentive for the displaced to go to the places where new jobs are, and/or to get that income while they train for a new type of job.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-11-2019 at 12:55 PM.
  #72  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:37 PM
ekedolphin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 5,089
You know this is a dumb idea because Tucker Carlson is the one espousing it. Full stop.
  #73  
Old 08-11-2019, 09:25 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
We should definitely ban automation. I don't understand how this is even a question. What do we have left if we automate everything? A bunch of automated things?
Look at how bad our civilization has gone because of it!! I mean, in the good old days when men were men and sheep were scared, we built things by hand...with stone tools! Or...well, forget those, they just make things easier. In the REAL good old days, we used our fingernails and teeth. None of this fancy fire stuff. None of those namby pamby stones used to smash things!!

I hope you were speaking mainly tongue in cheek. I sure was.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 08-11-2019 at 09:26 PM.
  #74  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:45 PM
Mcmechanic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 97
We could call it something fancy like “the Great Leap Forward” or in this case “the great leap backwards”
  #75  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:54 PM
Mcmechanic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 97
The Fox News audience is too stupid to know the difference between mao and Maga anyways, as long as guns, fuck yeah!
  #76  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:45 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
What say the Dope?
Enjoy starvation.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #77  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:57 AM
MarvinKitFox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Shouldn't we just *ban* automation?
Yep, sure. Great idea.

YOU start off by stopping the use of your electric can opener, your car, your phone, and your computer.
ALL of which are merely automated versions of more basic tools.

Have fun!
  #78  
Old 08-12-2019, 11:15 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,259
So, wanted to link to this video by one of the guys I subscribe too. It's not specifically about automation, but instead it's about UBI (or what I call BLS), since that's been brought up a few times. It's not a really deep dive into the subject, but more a dipping your toe in kind of thing, and I thought it was interesting.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #79  
Old 08-12-2019, 11:43 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I second that motion...can we ban him AND Trump, perhaps? Maybe we could automate Trump...I mean, I'm fairly sure even the stupidest machine ever could send out the tweets and crap that guy does. Not sure if we could make a robot that ugly though...
Just raid Disney’s Hall of Presidents.

Automation is not the problem. The problem is that as the economy advances a lot of human labor has very little value.
  #80  
Old 08-12-2019, 11:53 AM
Yllaria is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,854
This is reminding me of an SF short story. The robots were androids, rather than automated factory machines. The solution to the problem was to make a law that only individuals could own androids and (I think) that no person could own more than five. Factory owners had to lease the androids from individuals, which created an income stream for individuals.

I can see a lot of ways that could be gamed, and most automation isn't in the form of androids.

OK, now I've got visions of androids acting as carriers for sedan chairs. I should stay out of political threads.

(Automated wheelchairs roaming the city, mapping where ADA ramps are missing.)
  #81  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:25 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,882
OK I did actually find an interview where Tucker Carlson does explicitly state is approval for a complete ban on Self driving Trucks. Now I can quit defending him and go back to pure loathing.
  #82  
Old 08-12-2019, 03:32 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Look at how bad our civilization has gone because of it!! I mean, in the good old days when men were men and sheep were scared, we built things by hand...with stone tools! Or...well, forget those, they just make things easier. In the REAL good old days, we used our fingernails and teeth. None of this fancy fire stuff. None of those namby pamby stones used to smash things!!

I hope you were speaking mainly tongue in cheek. I sure was.
There are those who do feel that way, and some who actually live it, to some extent.

I actually enjoy eschewing modern stuff for a bit while I go camping, but a large part of that is that when I come home, I can appreciate things I take for granted like running water and flushing toilets.

Speaking of which, is a flushing toilet considered to be automation in this thread? Think of all the chambermaid jobs that we lost!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yllaria View Post
This is reminding me of an SF short story. The robots were androids, rather than automated factory machines. The solution to the problem was to make a law that only individuals could own androids and (I think) that no person could own more than five. Factory owners had to lease the androids from individuals, which created an income stream for individuals.

I can see a lot of ways that could be gamed, and most automation isn't in the form of androids.

OK, now I've got visions of androids acting as carriers for sedan chairs. I should stay out of political threads.

(Automated wheelchairs roaming the city, mapping where ADA ramps are missing.)
One proposal I've used in futurism is both to reduce the chances of a robot revolution and also as a jobs program is that any mechanical device that interacts with the world must be directed and overseen by a human.

To use an old, but probably familiar example, they could have "automated" George Jettson's job with a drinking bird, but, by being the man in the loop, he was actually preventing the machine from rising against its masters, a productive job that deserves recompense. Also, I don't think that he was pressing a button to initiate production, but rather, to send a reward signal to the AI after it had completed.
  #83  
Old 08-12-2019, 03:37 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender
There are those who do feel that way, and some who actually live it, to some extent.

I actually enjoy eschewing modern stuff for a bit while I go camping, but a large part of that is that when I come home, I can appreciate things I take for granted like running water and flushing toilets.

Speaking of which, is a flushing toilet considered to be automation in this thread? Think of all the chambermaid jobs that we lost!
That's always the rub, isn't it? I mean, where do you set the technological stopping point? Where do you say 'we should ban automation' from this point on? How do you decide? Is steam ok? It wasn't for many. How about water power? Iron? Bronze? Stone? Where do you draw the line...and how do you justify that choice? The Luddites set arbitrary lines for technology. But where does the OP and folks like the poster I was responding too draw the line...and why? What is the intent? Go back to the 50's era technology? 1900's technology? 1800's? 1700's? How about go back to Roman era technology? Or further back? Iron age? Bronze age? Copper age? Stone age? Nails and teeth age?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #84  
Old 08-13-2019, 03:10 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
That was a factor in why I got into the industry I'm in. I'm not saying it cannot ever be automated, but it is going to be a pretty good hold out before someone comes up with a way to make a robot that can groom a dog.
Want to bet?
Compare to my current job.
  #85  
Old 08-13-2019, 12:10 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
I don't understand the argument. Is the assertion that since prehistoric times through when we invented the lever and the wheel and up until last Tuesday, we have finally hit the exact sweet spot of where technology should stop and go not one inch further?
  #86  
Old 08-13-2019, 12:19 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't understand the argument. Is the assertion that since prehistoric times through when we invented the lever and the wheel and up until last Tuesday, we have finally hit the exact sweet spot of where technology should stop and go not one inch further?
The argument is "They're takin' our jerbs!" It's really that simple - people think immigrants are taking their jobs, so they want to ban immigrants. People think robots are taking their jobs, so they want to ban robots.

If people could figure out how to articulate wanting to ban people with better skills than them without banning themselves too, that would be the next thing.
  #87  
Old 08-13-2019, 12:28 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The argument is "They're takin' our jerbs!" It's really that simple - people think immigrants are taking their jobs, so they want to ban immigrants. People think robots are taking their jobs, so they want to ban robots.

If people could figure out how to articulate wanting to ban people with better skills than them without banning themselves too, that would be the next thing.
Economic displacement/replacement is real. And it's not just limited to immigration/automation. Increased global trade is a big disruptive trend. Now, obviously, banning robots is silly.
  #88  
Old 08-13-2019, 12:36 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Economic displacement/replacement is real. And it's not just limited to immigration/automation. Increased global trade is a big disruptive trend. Now, obviously, banning robots is silly.
Oh, certainly, I'm well aware of the issues; I've lost a job due to foreign outsourcing. (The company subsequently folded; sometimes the cheaper option ain't the best option.)

And it would be dishonest to pretend that automation isn't going to push people out of jobs - real human people who are quite naturally going to be unhappy about it. Of course history has shown pretty much without fail that automation benefits the greater society, so the unaffected are generally pretty cheerful about throwing the displaced under the bus, dismissing their concerns by saying that they should just get a quickie college degree and learn an entirely new trade. No problem!

Myself, I'm pretty okay with the idea of having a UBI to make landing under the bus a little more comfortable; I think that society as a whole has become prosperous enough that we literally can afford to make everyone reasonably comfortable, even the unemployed. This would require a little rearrangement of wealth of course; that would explicitly be the point! But it could be done, and probably should be done, for bread-and-circuses reasons if nothing else.

Last edited by begbert2; 08-13-2019 at 12:39 PM. Reason: typos and such
  #89  
Old 08-13-2019, 01:30 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Economic displacement/replacement is real. And it's not just limited to immigration/automation. Increased global trade is a big disruptive trend. Now, obviously, banning robots is silly.
It's not just real, and it's not limited to the things you've listed. Economic displacement/replacement is a fundamental part of Capitalism.

It's a never ending process where every job in every market is evaluated, and every business serving every market is evaluated. We are all put into that crucible of competition and market forces determine our fitness for continuing to do what we do.

It can take decades for changes to take hold, for markets to wax and wane, for jobs to be rethought, reimagined, automated or outsourced, but they will be. They MUST be.

You can no more ban automation than you can ban being smart. Now, you CAN react to automation, and create a system to help those who are inevitably going to be displaced/replaced. Such a system might not mesh well with the anti-socialist / bootstrappy policies of Republicans, though.
  #90  
Old 08-13-2019, 02:05 PM
Yllaria is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,854
I'm reminded of a Douglas Adams quote.

Quote:
Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017