Comment: you're assuming that the loss

(See in situ)


you're assuming that the loss

you're assuming that the loss of income from being replaced by a robot will be made up somewhere else by the displaced worker. maybe not, maybe he just becomes of zero economic value, or negative economic value.

there is no law that says people's labor should have economic value, especially not in a world where a robot can do anything more efficiently than an average person. belief in such a law is faith, not science.

perhaps it is inevitable, but it is not necessarily 'good,' unless we define 'good' as the same as what's 'necessary' and 'inevitable.'

however, if we define good (at least for arguments sake) as that which advances the individual's liberty and political clout against the state, than technology can be good or bad. just because something advances economic efficiency does not mean it contributes to the advancement of a social system of individual liberty and political rights.

the era in history in which people (very small segment of them, worldwide) had a serious conception of their "political rights" was brief indeed, peaked at least a half century ago if not earlier, and is a fleeing faster than ed snowden on rollerskates.

classical liberalism is a fleeting moment in history, and if plotted on a graph would be showing a worrying, well established down-trend with occasional upward blips. bear market, any way you look at it.

to think greater liberty it is an inevitable consequence of technology is naive and without basis in fact or experience.