←back to thread

Tog's Paradox

(www.votito.com)
190 points adzicg | 2 comments | 22 Oct 24 12:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.925s | source
Show context
nine_k ◴[22 Oct 24 14:31 UTC] No.41914693[source]▶
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.

replies(5): >>41914766 #>>41915028 #>>41916743 #>>41918405 #>>41918416 #
delichon ◴[22 Oct 24 14:39 UTC] No.41914766[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>41914865 #>>41914903 #>>41914935 #
Epa095 ◴[22 Oct 24 14:54 UTC] No.41914903[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>41915071 #>>41915104 #
delichon ◴[22 Oct 24 15:13 UTC] No.41915104[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>41917276 #
1. asoneth ◴[22 Oct 24 18:34 UTC] No.41917276[source]▶
> 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?

replies(1): >>41919293 #
2. pixl97 ◴[22 Oct 24 22:16 UTC] No.41919293[source]▶
Ya the point you make is one the so many of the 'only the strong survive' type miss. Maybe that person would be employed and fine, but the person that just lost everything may be willing to burn down the world.