>surprisingly contemporary
The feel-good bullshit at the end didn't phase you, eh?
"Americans who would've been taking orders and busing tables could develop new, more valuable skills as low-wage jobs are taken over by tech. Past periods of massive innovation — from the industrial revolution to the dot-com boom — didn't eliminate jobs, but shifted them elsewhere."
I did, in fact, almost comment on that stuff at the end and to some extent meant my mention of GoW to be aimed at that.
I think it's utter nonsense. I would say that's a default view of mine. I'm skeptical of any arguments based on "the greater good" (Stalinism, Nazism,
Grindelwaldism).
It's why I'm generally not very open to the argument that I have heard from friends who work in zoos that say, "Yes, the animals are in confined spaces that are two small for them, but zoos are important for preserving the species." So in the case of some very rare animals that have tiny populations outside of zoos, a high percentage are kept in captivity in the name of the good of the species (and I do feel different about a "luxury" zoo where they can roam, but my experience of zoos has always left me so depressed that I just can't go).
That's how I feel when I read comments like the one you quoted.
We use the term "Luddite" to mean someone who is hopelessly and
ignorantly against new technology. But the original Luddites were right. They believed that their quality of life would decrease as weaving shifted from a skilled artisanal activity to a factory occupation. And it did. Those populations did not recover until the great grandchildren of the original Luddite protesters entered the workforce. The Luddites and their children were made much worse off and (I think I have this right) the negative effects were still visible among their grandchildren.
So yes,
in the long run and on average, automation will improve lives, but we as humans live as
in the short run and as individuals. I expect the the short-run effect will be to concentrate wealth.
Exhibit B. Grapes of Wrath. That's sort of the point of the chapter I quoted from. Sure, in the long run we are all more prosperous because we've gone from a society where over half of all people were employed in agriculture to one where only 2% or so are. That's a complete inversion since the Middle Ages, by the way. On average and in the long run, it's been amazing. We have antibiotics and polio vaccine and central heat and climate-controlled self-propelled wagons. But for those like the Joads who were dispossessed of their land, it was not great to live through.
I think you can say something similar after a tour of Detroit, Youngstown and many other once-prosperous towns of the Midwest.
So I expect that the dislocation will be painful in the short run, even if it is beneficial in the long run. And unlike the previous dislocations, it will hit not just a couple of big sectors like fast food workers (maybe we are better off losing most of those jobs), but huge numbers of people who wear nice shoes and sit behind computers all day. Like the artisan weavers and the independent farmers and autoworkers in the heyday, they think of themselves as one or two rungs up the social ladder with a solid way to make a living, so they will find it hard to be kicked to the bottom. Some of us will be adaptable and thrive, and some of us will join up with Ned Ludd and attack the factories.
And given that any problems we have from automation will be compounded by climate change, I think the "short run" might not be very short this time.
