Tog's Paradox

It looks almost as if humans have a nearly infinite backlog of things they would do if they only had time and capability, and a limit on the amount of effort they are capable of exerting per day. Then, once new tools increase their productivity and free up a bit of resources, they pick more desiderata from the backlog, and try to also accomplish that. Naturally they seek more tools for the newly-possible activities, and the loop closes.

This applies to any activity, leisure emphatically included. Travel became simpler → more vacations now involve flying a plane and thus obtaining tickets online and thus comparison-shopping, aggregating reviews of faraway places, etc → omg, vacation travel is complex again. It just allows to fulfill more of a dream.

The nearly infinite backlog also means that there is nearly infinite demand for labor and Luddite adjacent arguments that labor saving technology causes persistent underemployment are invalid.

Even if we shouldn't be concerned about "persistent" underemployment, I still think that rapid "transient" unemployment due to rapidly evolving tech over the coming decades may cause significant societal upheaval that we should be concerned about - even if it's "just luddites" coming to burn our data centers.

Friendly reminder that things ended up quite shit for the actuall ludites, and the advantages only 'trickled down' after a generation or two. So I will keep being worried for everyone who works now, and their kids.

It mostly means that human desires are insatiable by construction, so humans always feel somehow missing out and wanting.

Check out the works of S. Gautama on the topic; it's enlightening! :)

I like to apply a similar lesson taught to me about content to consume - with the internet, there is a nearly infinite stream of entertainment and news, and it can feel overwhelming. In the past, our predecessors could read their 1 local printed newspaper and be "finished". So you have to change your thinking, to be we are able to curate a high-quality stream that constantly flows by, and when we desire, we can dip in and scoop up 1 serving.

To your comment about vacations, the issue is people subconsciously want to ensure their trip value is "maximized" - oh no, do I have time to see all 10 best spots in the city? Or some historical building is closed, and you read online how it's a lifechanging experience to see, and now you feel left out. So you have to push that aside, follow the 80/20 rule, and appreciate what you ARE able to do on your trip.

Indeed. People who use Luddite as a slur are ignorant of history and (possibly unwittingly) repeating capitalist propaganda.

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.

The interesting question is, why do so many people value spending time ‘maximizing’ with uncertain prospects more than extra time to enjoy the trip?

One trick is to hold your desires relatively constant (remind yourself that just X years ago, you dreamed of doing Y, which you can do now for much less effort). We somehow let the cost involved in a task influence how much we can enjoy it.

How do you curate the content you consume? And how do you prevent yourself from consuming non-curated content and loosing yourself in it?

> 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?

I think people are different that way. When I visit a city on my own, I tend to just wander around and find a nice spot or meet some interesting people and do whatever flows from that. Whereas when I am with certain friends or family, there is always a schedule and a destination.

It's just classic "Ends justify the means" thinking. It doesn't matter that 60k people will be jobless and eventually homeless because we are not "limiting" the "advancement" of society. It's okay if people suffer today because we are reducing the global suffering of tomorrow!

Nevermind that there does not have to be any cross purposes in those two sides! We don't have to get our clogs out and beat up the AI machines, we just have to "take care of" the people who's jobs the AI machines made redundant!

Adequate social welfare and safety nets, significant opportunities to retrain in new (and otherwise expensive) fields, funding for re-homing people and entire towns that have been made redundant.

And also a willingness to agree that "tech advancement" isn't morally neutral by default.

Well, travelling as a group of people almost always demands having a plan, otherwise “we’ll just wander around until we find something interesting” is a hard sell to get everyone on board.

Fair point. And that's why I prefer to travel alone or just with my fiancee. It's just much easier to, well, wander as you please.

Human as an aggregate, yes. Individually, not so much. I’ve seen way too many people getting lost in life when traditional values no longer applicable to them. They still have desire, but lose all their purpose.

That makes me think of Dune:

> Mankind has ah only one mm-m-m science," the Count said as they picked up their parade of followers and emerged from the hall into the waiting room - a narrow space with high windows and floor of patterned white and purple tile.

> "And what science is that?" the Baron asked.

> "It's the um-m-m-ah-h science of ah-h-h discontent," the Count said.

There are various ways to interpret that, but I prefer a more Stoic or Buddhist view, where it's a bad habit but we can be better at it.