• hackris@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Ahhh yes. In capitalism, if you create a machine that can replace say, 10 people, you don’t give them 1/10 of the work. You fire them and maybe hire someone to operate it.

    Machines and human workers can coexist. They don’t have to replace them.

    Edit: Of course they should replace them, but only after we get good living conditions for unemployed people, which are currently non-existent.

    • Kedly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, we arent going to get our Jetsons future if we refuse to restructure our society towards not having to work instead of just fighting the tech because its taking our jobs away

      • hackris@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Of course, the end goal (mind the word “end”) is to replace them. However, in this current situation, where many people are struggling to find a job, it’s not good.

      • interolivary@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        They should replace workers and people should deserve to live without being workers, but it should also be painfully obvious that our current economic system won’t support this idea, and won’t until we do some pretty drastic things.

        It’s not that we couldn’t build a post-scarcity society probably even right now given some pretty radical adjustment of resource allocations, we just don’t want to build one – “we” being the 0.01% that have such insane amounts of wealth that they’ve essentially taken over the whole economic system, largely thanks to eg. dumb fucks like Reagan and sociopathic fucks like Thatcher and the people who idolize them buying into the idea that they too can be that rich because the wealth will somehow magically trickle down.