Concentrated power multiplies the force of its actions, whether (subjectively) good or (subjectively) bad. See the danger?
Maybe someday, someone in power will decide a job you gain fulfillment from is a terrible job.
Them market. If your job provides value, then you shouldn't have problem finding people to pay you to do it. If you can't... maybe we shouldn't keep it around.
>Maybe someday, someone in power will decide a job you gain fulfillment from is a terrible job.
What are you trying to get at here, that because losing your job sucks and anyone's job could be at risk, we shouldn't be eliminating jobs at all?
Well, if a job can be done by a machine, it should be done by a machine - after all, if there is one thing common across humanity, it is the desire for progress.
The problem is that unlike what was believed a century ago, automation did not lead to less work for humans at all, quite the contrary: our ancestors fought (often literally to death) for the 40 hour week, and that was enough to feed a family on. Nowadays both people have to work (way more than) 40 hours a week to afford a shack, and politicians wonder our generation doesn't have kids. Guess fucking what, why they don't. And ask yourself where the fuck all that extra wealth from all the women working full-time ended up, hint: not in your bank account.
Is that really progress though? Honestly, more and more jobs can be done by machines. But what about the fact that human beings need to connect and feel at least that they are contributing somewhat to society?
Progress is not synonymous with automation. And it's not universal across humanity. The Amish recognize that not all automation is good and they hold meetings to decide which technologies should be introduced.
Many people realize that there is an ideal point of automation -- and complete automation is not ideal.
Well, if people's basic needs would be taken care of (=UBI financed by taxes on automation, or by just plainly taxing the rich), they could have time left for actually contributing to society - anything from caring for the elderly to making art.
That is an assumption that is not obviously true at all. Plenty of people are not creatives and not self-directed enough to do so. But even if they are motivated, can we really be sure that such a soceity would work, because people will know they are not truly needed?
To be honest, already, society seems rather meaningless in some ways and I think a lot of people find meaning in their work that they would not if no one really valued them economically.
And also, people may make art, but automation now also seems to imply that the world will drown in a sea of AI-generated art that may make actually getting such art to a wide audience almost impossible.
To me, it is far from clear than a totally automated society will be any sort of utopia.
Some people, when given the resources to thrive without having to work, take a bunch of time off in order to heal from long-term burnout. But even most of them will eventually return to doing something productive of some sort.
But does "society" have to happen only "at work"?
I agree that more stuff should be automated, but you’re so very wrong on this one that you should spend more time with human beings to understand why you’re so wrong. Ironical for someone who’s advocating for automation.
This is an opinion, although I suspect you hold it strongly.
> after all, if there is one thing common across humanity, it is the desire for progress.
How do you define progress? Pure production and consumption? Net increase in subjective happiness across all people?
If I can make a book recommendation, check out the Culture series by Iain M. Banks. These are well-trodden thought experiments in science fiction, and they're more relevant than ever.
Sure, but what is "progress"? Who gets to define it.
Are we sure "if a job can be done by a machine, it should be done by a machine" is universally true -- and even if it is, who and what says that that's necessarily equal to "progress"?