Hacker News Reader

Comment by michelsedgh | Hacker News Reader

If you were alive right before industrialization, you probably would’ve been one of the people wishing that would stop too.

View on HN

+-3 generations of British people lived in roughly the same and in many cases worse conditions (life expectancy dropped during the early industrial revolution, severely in cities). As an average person you would not have been wrong to be against it. It was only in the 1860s-1880s that conditions got better because of bargaining power of the labour class and goodwill of some rich people, two things unlikely to repeat if something like AGI really happens.

This is the thing I mention often.

"Am I arguing against the shuttle loom!?"

Then I realize that the shuttle loom led to the rise of unions because of unfair treatment in factories and realize that we have a _long_ way to go.

On the other hand, because of the general level of education and broad access to written history, we know about the unions and have the playbook.

But so do the builders of the shuttle loom and the controllers of capital...

Most people who were afraid of industrialization at that point were correct to be afraid of it. It destroyed livelihoods, threw people into slave-like conditions, enabled the most immense violence ever seen, etc. etc.

And don't forget WWI and WWII enabled by industrialization.

Industrialization took decade or even more, AI took just a few years. AI is a quite a shock for our economy.

Is the implication that industrialization was a net positive for our species?

Not OP but that seems to be the implication. Let’s hear your argument against industrialization being net positive?

All I can say is: THANK YOU!!

> Let’s hear your argument against industrialization being net positive?

The main argument is that it's too early too judge it and at this point basically NO industrial process is sustainable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com