Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

No one should have to do work that can

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 7:30:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
be done my a machine. Harvard Professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger argues mainly from the standpoint that anything that is repeatable (which can be done my a machine) is demeaning for a person to do. He argues that a transition to this ideal, coupled with a change in the educational system to more properly create critical thinkers and intellectuals, would ultimately be beneficial to humanity. What do you think?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:48:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 7:30:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
be done my a machine. Harvard Professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger argues mainly from the standpoint that anything that is repeatable (which can be done my a machine) is demeaning for a person to do. He argues that a transition to this ideal, coupled with a change in the educational system to more properly create critical thinkers and intellectuals, would ultimately be beneficial to humanity. What do you think?

I think it would be beneficial in terms of progress to adopt this kind of society. I don't think that repeatable actions are inherently demeaning though. I find repetitive tasks to be highly therapeutic and allow my mind to do creative work while I can occupy my physical body with tasks. Many repetitive tasks can actually be turned into forms of art or at least a source of pride. Artisans spend large amounts of time doing repetitive work, but the end result is always unique in some way because it is hand made. So mass production should always be done by machines yes, but repetitive work in general? I think there is definitely something to be said for it.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 12:26:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I didn't watch the video, but I'll respond to your claim (defend it with the video's claims by all means).

I could not disagree more. Who is going to build and maintain all these machines? Sounds like a lot of work to me!

Now I do like the concept that we eliminate menial labor, but that is not done through mechanization, that is done through reduction of consumption.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 2:22:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree so much so that I would say any argument we have, about the correct direction of the economy, which ignores this, is meaningless.

Fuck your capitalism. And fuck your socialism. Science is the only thing which has ever improved the human condition in the long wrong, speaking in tangible terms. You can argue about which has a better record of achieving it. But science is still the point. The point which is often either ignored and minimalized.

We have the ability automate 99% of industry right now. It means the maximization of efficiency and, most importantly, human potential. Every moment we don't is insanity.

There is no excuse to hold back such potential other than primitivism.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 2:23:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 12:26:35 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I could not disagree more. Who is going to build and maintain all these machines? Sounds like a lot of work to me!

First we build machines that build other machines. Then it becomes exponential.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TheAccountant
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 2:55:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:48:50 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 8/24/2013 7:30:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
be done my a machine. Harvard Professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger argues mainly from the standpoint that anything that is repeatable (which can be done my a machine) is demeaning for a person to do. He argues that a transition to this ideal, coupled with a change in the educational system to more properly create critical thinkers and intellectuals, would ultimately be beneficial to humanity. What do you think?

I think it would be beneficial in terms of progress to adopt this kind of society. I don't think that repeatable actions are inherently demeaning though. I find repetitive tasks to be highly therapeutic and allow my mind to do creative work while I can occupy my physical body with tasks. Many repetitive tasks can actually be turned into forms of art or at least a source of pride. Artisans spend large amounts of time doing repetitive work, but the end result is always unique in some way because it is hand made. So mass production should always be done by machines yes, but repetitive work in general? I think there is definitely something to be said for it.

I agree with the_croftmeister in some points, but have to say that Artisans' hand made items cannot be said repetitive, because they have the selling point of being uniquely hand made haha. the statement made "No one should have to do work that can be done by a machine" is too vague and could actually be enhanced to "No one should have to do work that DO NOT GIVE PERSONAL BENEFITS by doing it manually that can be done EXACTLY the same by a machine. :D
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 9:20:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 7:30:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
be done my a machine. Harvard Professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger argues mainly from the standpoint that anything that is repeatable (which can be done my a machine) is demeaning for a person to do. ... What do you think?

I think he's one weird dude. Dildos as labor-saving devices? "I have a robot to ride my horse, so I won't have to. It's so repetitive." That Arnold Palmer, we was one demeaned person, swinging that club over and over.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 12:48:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 2:23:31 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/25/2013 12:26:35 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I could not disagree more. Who is going to build and maintain all these machines? Sounds like a lot of work to me!

First we build machines that build other machines. Then it becomes exponential.

And who builds and maintains the machines that build the machines that build the machines? Don't give me this 3D printing bullsh1t either... Building more machines just takes more resources, more manpower, more maintenance, more electricity usage, more pollution... You probably think this is the magic bullet but in fact there is none!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 12:26:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 12:48:39 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
And who builds and maintains the machines that build the machines that build the machines? Don't give me this 3D printing bullsh1t either... Building more machines just takes more resources, more manpower, more maintenance, more electricity usage, more pollution... You probably think this is the magic bullet but in fact there is none!

The innovation and resource consumption will continue, along with population growth. The only way out of that is to kill a ton of people or move into space. Space sounds more appealing to me.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 12:39:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 12:48:39 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 8/25/2013 2:23:31 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/25/2013 12:26:35 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I could not disagree more. Who is going to build and maintain all these machines? Sounds like a lot of work to me!

First we build machines that build other machines. Then it becomes exponential.

And who builds and maintains the machines that build the machines that build the machines? Don't give me this 3D printing bullsh1t either... Building more machines just takes more resources, more manpower, more maintenance, more electricity usage, more pollution... You probably think this is the magic bullet but in fact there is none!

Population control and machines that build machines-builders. Self replicating machines will eventually deal with that issue, but we're a long way from that yet. If machines can build machines that acquire more resources then they can use those resources to build yet more machines. Sound familiar? It's called life. Unless you are of the opinion that humans will never build anything that equals the capabilities of nature in this regard (not all of them, just self-replication). Fair enough, I hold the opposite view.

I'm not denying that it will be difficult, we can't build the first self-replicating machine and say woopee we've solved the worlds problems! But with effort it may develop into a workable solution.

I say population control because I agree with you, we can only solve the problem in the short term by reducing consumption. The easiest way to do this is to reduce the number of consumers. Interestingly, increasing education and quality of life leads to a decrease in population growth (though there may be cultural factors in play here). So by elevating the world to higher standards we may actually shrink the growth rate and hence reduce consumption. Inevitably though, each individual will consume more. This also has to be tackled by education.

You seem to complain against a 'one solution' approach. Yet you posit a 'one solution' approach yourself (stop consuming), which doesn't exactly lend credibility to your position. I think there will be a whole range of measures that will eventually solve this issue including but not limited to renewable energy, increased efficiency, population control, reduced consumption (or at least greater efficiency in consumption) and automation. All valid approaches, none of which are contradictory. Why shouldn't we pursue them all simultaneously?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 12:46:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 2:55:23 AM, TheAccountant wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:48:50 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 8/24/2013 7:30:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
be done my a machine. Harvard Professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger argues mainly from the standpoint that anything that is repeatable (which can be done my a machine) is demeaning for a person to do. He argues that a transition to this ideal, coupled with a change in the educational system to more properly create critical thinkers and intellectuals, would ultimately be beneficial to humanity. What do you think?

I think it would be beneficial in terms of progress to adopt this kind of society. I don't think that repeatable actions are inherently demeaning though. I find repetitive tasks to be highly therapeutic and allow my mind to do creative work while I can occupy my physical body with tasks. Many repetitive tasks can actually be turned into forms of art or at least a source of pride. Artisans spend large amounts of time doing repetitive work, but the end result is always unique in some way because it is hand made. So mass production should always be done by machines yes, but repetitive work in general? I think there is definitely something to be said for it.

I agree with the_croftmeister in some points, but have to say that Artisans' hand made items cannot be said repetitive, because they have the selling point of being uniquely hand made haha. the statement made "No one should have to do work that can be done by a machine" is too vague and could actually be enhanced to "No one should have to do work that DO NOT GIVE PERSONAL BENEFITS by doing it manually that can be done EXACTLY the same by a machine. :D
Artisan's perform highly repetitive tasks, each individual item is slightly different sure, but the tasks are the same. You appear to be disagreeing with me, but agreeing with my conclusion (that an artisan's work is valuable and should not be automated even though it might be able to be). The differences between artisanal products and mass produced ones is usually aesthetic (still valuable but not related to function). Loss in functional quality is usually due to reduction in the quality of the materials used to make said products and this is not affected by automation (in most cases, there are exceptions).

I don't think the EXACTLY is precisely necessary in your last statement, it should just be 'for the same purpose and of the same quality'.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 1:43:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 7:30:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
be done my a machine. Harvard Professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger argues mainly from the standpoint that anything that is repeatable (which can be done my a machine) is demeaning for a person to do. He argues that a transition to this ideal, coupled with a change in the educational system to more properly create critical thinkers and intellectuals, would ultimately be beneficial to humanity. What do you think?



(didn't view the video yet)

I think a problem with this is that accurate critical thought tends to rely upon repetition in order to increase accuracy.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 2:02:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 1:43:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 7:30:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
be done my a machine. Harvard Professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger argues mainly from the standpoint that anything that is repeatable (which can be done my a machine) is demeaning for a person to do. He argues that a transition to this ideal, coupled with a change in the educational system to more properly create critical thinkers and intellectuals, would ultimately be beneficial to humanity. What do you think?

(didn't view the video yet)

I think a problem with this is that accurate critical thought tends to rely upon repetition in order to increase accuracy.

Seconded
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 6:40:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 1:43:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 7:30:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
be done my a machine. Harvard Professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger argues mainly from the standpoint that anything that is repeatable (which can be done my a machine) is demeaning for a person to do. He argues that a transition to this ideal, coupled with a change in the educational system to more properly create critical thinkers and intellectuals, would ultimately be beneficial to humanity. What do you think?



(didn't view the video yet)

I think a problem with this is that accurate critical thought tends to rely upon repetition in order to increase accuracy.

I'm pretty sure he was speaking more about repetitive tasks than practice.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 7:21:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 6:40:31 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/26/2013 1:43:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/24/2013 7:30:59 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
be done my a machine. Harvard Professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger argues mainly from the standpoint that anything that is repeatable (which can be done my a machine) is demeaning for a person to do. He argues that a transition to this ideal, coupled with a change in the educational system to more properly create critical thinkers and intellectuals, would ultimately be beneficial to humanity. What do you think?

(didn't view the video yet)

I think a problem with this is that accurate critical thought tends to rely upon repetition in order to increase accuracy.

I'm pretty sure he was speaking more about repetitive tasks than practice.
The question then being of course, how does one tell the difference?