Eyes Above The Waves

> Have you considered your remarks in the historical context of the other times people have predicted a technological advance is going to make many people unemployed? Yes, that was in my previous post. > Was it true last time? Eventually, no, though there was a lot of suffering in the interim. > Why is this time different? The industrial revolution destroyed a lot of jobs involving manual labour and created new jobs mostly revolving around mental labour (including human interaction). Computers are increasingly able to do those jobs. So the question is, what common human capabilities will machines still lack in the long term, and could we discover massive amounts of useful work that require those capabilities? I admit we can't be absolutely certain the answer to the latter is "no". I'm confident the situation this time is different enough that we can't rely on the past as a guide to the future. > You say that heavy taxation is a humane solution, but it's not, as it's not a Biblical one. There is no warrant in the Bible for taxing people _just because they've got the money_. I'm not aware that the Bible speaks clearly about legitimate grounds for taxation. > In addition, while work should never be our ultimate source of self-worth, it is a creation ordinance and therefore part of what leads to human flourishing. So the idea that we need to replace it with something else is also problematic. I fully agree! > However, I suspect there will be no need, as people will always find some useful way of continuing to fill the earth and subdue it. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. We shall see. > Your last paragraph is fair, though - there's no reason that any jobs should be exempted from disruption by technological change. Thanks. I think your position is reasonable. The position that I really abhor is "everything's going to be alright ... but if not, *those other people* get to deal with it."

To be more clear: I agree with you that massive wealth redistribution by governments creates big problems and, at the extremes, has a nightmarish track record. It removes a lot of freedom, it plays havoc with incentives, it undermines ethics and spirituality, and it concentrates power. I am not one of those people who recommends it as the solution to every issue. Nevertheless, in a future of automation-induced mass unemployment, I think it might be the best available option --- partly because, in such a future, most of those downsides would already be rampant. We should try to find other, better options. We should also look for ways to mitigate the downsides of massive wealth redistribution. I think we're more likely to be successful if there aren't large sectors of society confident that "it won't happen to *us*".