Why not let machines take over?

Not quite philosophy discussions, debates, various thought experiments and other topics of interest.

Why not let machines take over?

Postby jon_lad on September 12th, 2015, 9:58 pm 

I'm talking from the perspective of letting machines take over the role of humans in the workplace. this is eventually going to happen anyway. Shouldn't there be some kind of debate how wealth is distributed when this happens. the only way I see it is through the following steps.

1. Nationalization of as much industry as possible - I have considered how things would progress from a private industry's standpoint and unless you have a global initiative on tax to give to the people (which may be possible) getting funds to the people (who may riot) will be all but impossible

2. Reducing maximum wages to pay for increased welfare payments as you want to get more people on welfare payments need to be increased to a proportion of GDP per capita with a small difference between rich and poor small wage differences are more significant encouraging work in sectors where machines need more development to take over

3. Eventually aim to increase the welfare payment to GDP - spending on nationally determined goals per capita (including wages of the required work)

I would like to hear other solutions to this problem and maybe methods to get the solutions enacted
jon_lad
 


Re: Why not let machines take over?

Postby ivanchagasp on September 28th, 2015, 7:12 am 

That's very good point indeed. To those who are against machines taking over "people's jobs", I often reply "wouldn't it be more inhuman to let a person do a job that a machine could?".
But I think there's a problem with letting the machines taking over entirely: what would we do? I think that's a very important question to what happens before the complete shift.

Because before the change is done, there will be a huge difference between those who work and those who don't. It's like nowadays with people that work in agriculture with handwork and those who have all the machinery. The gap is huge.

I just don't think that will ever happen though. Simply put: if machinery takes over (ignoring that the possibility of them thinking), will we assume that there's no innovation to be done anymore? That we reached our potential? So we could just "stop working"?
ivanchagasp
 


Re: Why not let machines take over?

Postby TheVat on September 30th, 2015, 12:50 pm 

There would always be service jobs where a human touch is preferable (literally so, if one were seeking a massage). And artists, and people who market their art. And cooking (which perhaps falls under "art"). And the pursuit of knowledge and yes, innovation. I think the trend that's been going on for several centuries, of machines lessening drudgery and hard labor, will continue. If people who work on roofing or paving crews could find other occupations, would they begrudge that hard labor to robots? I doubt it. There are some forms of physical outdoor labor that people enjoy, especially when they are young, and there might be those who opt to do that for a while, like work on a farm, raise thoroughbred horses, viniculture, park rangers, etc. As Ivan suggests, it is the transition period, where there are haves and have-nots, that will be difficult.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7214
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills



Return to Odds & Ends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests