We've done this dozens of times before. In the short term some people suffer and that is bad for them. In the long term everyone is much better off due to increased productivity.
No, we really haven't. Every previous wave of automation has targeted human labor.
The thing that makes human's unique in the animal kingdom is our intelligence. From an economic stand point, that's the thing that makes people valuable.
When that's automated, what is there left? Onlyfans?
Do people still believe in these fairy tales lmao? Most of the productivity gains don't go to the workers, pretty much everywhere in the developed world working hours and retirement age are going up, housing affordability is going down. You're not "much better off"
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcX...
Politicians were selling us the 3 days workweek like 40+ years ago, while shilling for more automated factories, it never happened, it didn't happen with computers, it won't happen with AI
how about 100 years?
> Beginning in Great Britain around 1760, the Industrial Revolution had spread to continental Europe and the United States by about 1840
You know what else happened during that 100-200 years time frame? 2 Wars + Governments decided to step in and rebuild post-war. Governments tax the rich/elite by 90%.
You know what else happened? workers being punished physically and mentally until the formation of Unions.
You skipped a big chunk of The Ruling Class always exploit everybody else like what we're seeing right now: Tech CEOs laying off and not hiring.
History repeats again.
Are our productivity increase for the better? People are still working overtime because of reduced worker's protection today.
That's infuriating right there.
Also,
> In the short term some people suffer and that is bad for them.
The casual way that the well-being and survival of people in the here-and-now is disregarded doubles how infuriating this all is.
Every time, the "increased productivity" is inevitable, but that is not the same as better off. None of these changes has been 100% positive, even in the long run, and this one is shaping up to be the most disappointing of them all in that dimension.
Inevitable != purely good.
You can be pragmatic and give a shit about humans at the same time. It's not a puzzle.
Personally i do in fact think we are better off (in the long term) because of e.g. the industrial revolution.
Short term, it was horrific, but i'd still rather live now than as a peasent in the mid-1700s.
I'd be intersted in hearing a counter argument from anyone who disagrees, as its hard for me to imagine.
I.e. progress is not free, and some costs last forever, they are not only up-front. Ignoring the costs is deadly.
I don't think you're coming at this from a place of thoughtfulness (it's a tough, broad topic).
Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions, it just means that people are correct to resist against things that harm their lives and their children's lives, even if it theoretically makes life easier for their grandchildren (which isn't even clearly true in this case, making my point even more valid).
I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own. This can be a really tough point with complicated implications, but it's fundamentally unassailable.
I don't think i'm twisting here in the slightest. Every moral choice involves weighing the harms vs the benefits at some level. Things that are 100% good or 100% bad don't exist in real life.
> I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own
Ok, as in morally ok? Always?
I do not subscribe to the view that it is morally ok for humans to act in their own interests in all cases.
Whether something is morally ok to do depends on a lot of factors. There is no blanket, X is always ok.
> Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions
Typically the term "correct" is an endorsement. It is a value judgement saying someone is behaving in the way you think they should behave. Are you using the term to mean something else?
-----
Edit: i read a little too fast. I guess you are more claiming a moral relativism argument that everyone always thinks their own cause is just, not a moral nilihism argument. Personally i've never found moral relativism all that useful because at the end of the day decisions still have to be made, people are still going to be hurt as a result of those decisions. Somehow someone still has to make the choice and they still need some framework to ground their decision in.