Hacker News Reader

I don't know anyone who disputes that economic progress necessarily has winners and losers in the near term. Or that there is much we can do to cushion the blow to the losers. But to prevent the blow altogether would mean preventing the rise of powered looms and other machines that have done much for those later generations. It would be an example of ruinous empathy.

View on HN

> It would be an example of ruinous empathy.

Setting aside empathy, giving some thought about how we can slow the rate of change and/or cushion the fall for those affected is also in our self-interest.

As the number of people who have little left to lose grows, it destabilizes society and sets the stage for populism and revolution. Are cheap goods really so important that we're willing to leave our children to deal with another round of communism vs fascism?

Ya the point you make is one the so many of the 'only the strong survive' type miss. Maybe that person would be employed and fine, but the person that just lost everything may be willing to burn down the world.

Or we could just continue to pay the loom workers to thank them for their service. The problem with that idea is that such a decision is pawned off to an individual, who automatically gets eliminated from the game if he decides it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com