Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mecharonin t1_ir95oll wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Robots are making French fries faster, better than humans by DaveOJ12

Maybe we could come up with a better economic system or something.

Or we could bring all technological progress to a screeching halt because it's easier to be a machine smashing luddite than to work towards meaningful social progress.

23

MageLocusta t1_ir97ujl wrote

The thing is though, 'social progress' took a long time to actually happen when factories were created.

All the victorian problems regarding overcrowding, malnutrition, and disease actually happened from the event when factories were created up to the end of the 19th century (and the majority of the victims weren't stubborn luddites (which went away quickly because you can't rebel when you're starving), but the factory workers who did everything they were 'supposed to'). And at LEAST the factory owners were subject to local laws then (and aren't like the sweatshop factories owned by international companies like Unilever, Boy, and Hugo Boss where if something happens--they can just shrug and walk away without paying a single fine.

The very reason why social (<---key word here) progress even happened was BECAUSE our US and UK government hit back on those factory & mine owners like a ton of bricks. We didn't ask companies nicely to stop hiring 9 year olds. Instead we banned them outright. We didn't ask companies nicely to stop using company scrip instead of a salary, we had to outright ban it and threaten to put them out of business. And sadly we live in a world now where no one wants to go hard against companies because they'd rather take the money and do nothing.

4

guygeneric t1_irakfmo wrote

That is a very simplistic understanding of the labor history of the US and UK. Social progress wasn't made "because our governments hit the factory and mine owners like a ton of bricks". Those governments have historically been on the side of the companies, usually just acting straight-up as tools and weapons for the capitalists. It wasn't until the working class in those countries became highly organized and militant, and threatened revolutionary action against both the government and the capitalists (backed up by the successful example of the Russian revolution) that critical segments of the political and economic leadership decided it was better to make concessions than to risk being overthrown.

5

MageLocusta t1_irbbo62 wrote

You know what? You're right--it really is very simplistic.

We have tried the 'soft touch' with past factories and mines (especially by trying to impose factory inspectors--which the UK had deliberately screwed up with their 1833 Factory Act where they only hired four factory inspectors to inspect the entire country's factories). But sadly it wasn't just us campaigning and protesting--it was also the government (moral) panic of realising that children were becoming completely ignorant of religion because of lack of schooling (and apparently also women becoming 'loose' from working in mines and factories). But it truly did take a long time for this to even happen, which is definitely why I personally don't feel confident that replacing jobs with robots would create any social progress. Because weaving machines sure as hell didn't.

3

Wiley_Applebottom t1_ir9ojux wrote

Yo, retail prices literally went up in tandem with self checkout. So none of the benefits and all of the problems are happening at this current moment.

1

8-36 t1_ir992m0 wrote

Damn, criticizing social problems automation WILL create is somehow anti progress?

I would even criticize the fucking comical robot hand to be retrofitted to a french fry station instead of coming up with a more efficient and better solution to fry that shit.

0