When is it not true? That's how it was for the Luddite weavers, that's how it was for carriage drivers, that's how it was for animators, and that's how it's turning out for coders, writers and artists today. Eventually there becomes no point in doing anything for yourself because a machine can do it better. Thus there's no point in learning anything either. Not much point in living either except to experience emotions and that will be conveniently facilitated by brain stimulation rather than actually doing things.
I'm a little confused, you just argued we don't have to "use this new thing or be replaced," but now you're saying "eventually a machine can do anything better." Which is it?
I'm saying in the type of society we have we are forced to use new tech or be replaced. In this type of society it is inevitable (if we somehow don't cause a near-extinction event first) that machines will come to do everything and humans won't have anything productive to do, just ways to pass time and experience emotions. But we could change to a different type of society that values human social wellbeing over productive efficiency and economics. By stopping certain types of technological progress we would prevent all the bad outcomes that are inevitable consequences of our current system.
Second, if I did, then your personal choice and evangelism to abstain doesn't seem much more effective than climate change believers cutting down on their flights to reduce global CO2. If society is to reset, it'll have to hit some form of apocalypse like the Great Depression. Until then, people will keep doing what gives them an advantage over other people.
You're right that a catastrophe tends to motivate major change but it can happen without that (e.g., the abolition of slavery) and in any case it helps to have the groundwork in place so that when disaster strikes it's immediately clear what direction to take.
When is it not true? That's how it was for the Luddite weavers, that's how it was for carriage drivers, that's how it was for animators, and that's how it's turning out for coders, writers and artists today. Eventually there becomes no point in doing anything for yourself because a machine can do it better. Thus there's no point in learning anything either. Not much point in living either except to experience emotions and that will be conveniently facilitated by brain stimulation rather than actually doing things.
I'm a little confused, you just argued we don't have to "use this new thing or be replaced," but now you're saying "eventually a machine can do anything better." Which is it?
I'm saying in the type of society we have we are forced to use new tech or be replaced. In this type of society it is inevitable (if we somehow don't cause a near-extinction event first) that machines will come to do everything and humans won't have anything productive to do, just ways to pass time and experience emotions. But we could change to a different type of society that values human social wellbeing over productive efficiency and economics. By stopping certain types of technological progress we would prevent all the bad outcomes that are inevitable consequences of our current system.
First of all, I don't agree with that idea.
Second, if I did, then your personal choice and evangelism to abstain doesn't seem much more effective than climate change believers cutting down on their flights to reduce global CO2. If society is to reset, it'll have to hit some form of apocalypse like the Great Depression. Until then, people will keep doing what gives them an advantage over other people.
What do you disagree with?
You're right that a catastrophe tends to motivate major change but it can happen without that (e.g., the abolition of slavery) and in any case it helps to have the groundwork in place so that when disaster strikes it's immediately clear what direction to take.