Protect the human culture while you can. His advice to embrace AI in order to survive what's coming is naive. When Europeans came to native Americans, they brought their technology, their way of thinking and erased the native culture in a matter of years. The weak were poisoned with alcohol, the strong were killed and the few survivors were sent to reservations. Would it be possible to survive by embracing the alien culture? Don't fool yourself.
Nothing new here, that's basically what the luddites complained about: the machines that replaced them output worse quality garments and sent them all to the streets. It only benefitted the owners. Capital will always seek to rid itself of its dependence on labor, until it eventually succeeds...
And the buyers. As a ballpark estimate, it would take around 50 hours of human labor to produce a shirt by hand, fabric plus sewing, versus about an hour of human labor by industrial machines. That lowers the cost greatly, which most consumers demonstrably value over custom tailoring.
At the time, the quality of machine-made clothes was noticeably worse than human-made. It's debatable wether the "consumers" (the term certainly wasn't used at the time) won in the end. Terry Pratchett's "Boots theory" feels relevant here:
> Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
> But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
> It's debatable whether the "consumers" won in the end.
If "in the end" is now, it's pretty clear that automation has made clothing both better and cheaper. And paying $10 now for shoes of less than 1/5th value of $50 shoes much later, or not at all, can be entirely rational. Most of us make that kind of compromise frequently.
Is it really better if it's made by slaves in the Global South, from a mix of plastics and crops grown in an unsustainable way, then shipped across the globe, and made to last about seven washing cycles before being disposed? Debatable, as I said.
I just don't think that this is an accurate description of modern clothing. Cotton is not typically grown in unsustainable ways, and cheap 100% cotton clothing that will last for years is widely available at a variety of retailers.
But a lot of people don't want that. They want comfortable stretchy clothing, accepting or not realizing the inherent tradeoff with durability. Or they want thinner, lighter styles at the very edge of what a 50/50 polyester blend can hold together.
I just bought a new shirt on eBay for $22, including shipping. If that shirt had taken 50x as much labor to produce, what would it have cost? Is it unhinged capitalism to prefer the cheap shirt?
The only reason why the shirt is cheap is because we value your labor in the dollars an hour and the shirt maker's labor in the pennies.
Now what if you made that same $5 a week as the shirt maker. Is that $22 shirt still cheap? How many might you own? Now think of what shirt the $5 week shirt maker is wearing. It says Chicago Bulls on it and was given to them by a nonprofit. The nonprofit only had this shirt available because people like him make 1000 shirts a day to sell to westerners to wear for a few weeks collectively before they give it for free to goodwill.
Does this seem like a sustainable, scalable system of resource and labor distribution to you? Or is it based entirely on the fact that there exist some orphan crushing machine still in some corner of the world to make it seem cheap and frictionless for those of us in the global 1%?
No it wouldn’t. American Apparel used to (maybe it still does) make its shirts in a factory in Los Angeles, and its shirts were not noticeably more expensive than the likes of Abercrombie that made clothes overseas. AA couldn’t have competed in the lower end of the market, but their clothes were still not astronomically expensive because the factory was already heavily automated via machines.
The larger cost for a lot of manufacturing in the richest countries is permitting and regulation, plus the fact that the manufacturing knowledge cluster is concentrated in China now, making every part of setting up a factory there smoother.
Los Angeles Apparel is what you are thinking of (I believe owner of AA sold the brand and started this which is manufactured in los angeles). And their t shirts, blank t shirts not dress shirts mind you, are $28 or so depending on weight. Blank hanes or fruit of the loom t shirt made overseas can be had for basically an order of magnitude less than the american manufactured version.
Or your business gets flagged by an automated system for dubious reasons with no way to appeal. It's the old story of big tech: they pretend to be on your side first, but their motives are nefarious.
But seriously, when most people see that their head of state has no moral standards whatsoever, they'll follow and drop their own standard even lower. It would be a similar situation if a bishop was openly a drunkard or if an army sergeant was a lazy drug addict.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said this in 1928:
> Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means - to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal - would bring terrible retributions.
Did you notice any evidence of triggering in the person you are replying to's post? I didn't, but perhaps you are some kind of triggering-detection savant beyond my understanding
> ..when most people see that their head of state has no moral standards whatsoever,
I’m not a trigger-detecting savant. I just don’t share your or GP’s assumptions about “most people”. There isn’t a single standard -- people here don’t all think alike.
This might become technocracy at some point, if the corporations become stronger than the state govs. In that case, the entire NOAM region will become a so-called technate, ruled by a form of ToS. I'd say, technocracy is way worse than even autocracy.
I think you may have fundamentally misunderstood what a technocracy is: it has nothing to do with tech companies whatsoever. From literally the article that you have linked:
> The technocracy movement proposed replacing partisan politicians and business people with scientists and engineers who had the technical expertise to manage the economy.
Technocracy is probably not the right word for what you mean. Oligarchy is probably a better one. This will probably evolve into idiocracy if you have seen the similarly named documentary .
reply