Your point about millions of displaced people rising up and being unhappy is 100% valid. But you'll be hard pressed to find any company willing to sacrifice a slice of their earnings to employe people just because it's the right thing to do. Especially in the US where the entire culture is based around corporate profits only ever increasing at a rate greater than inflation. The US is in one big race to the bottom to see who can shave $0.01 off the sale price of their product. That naturally leads to two things. Monopolies and hyper efficiency. Because when your profit margin is pennies per unit you have to move one hell of a lot units to make hundreds of millions a year in revenue.
Sure, but that's what legislation is for. We have a minimum wage and laws protecting workers for a reason. Companies do have a disproportionate influence on politics, but only to a point. When it comes to a truly unhappy populace, politicians know what's more important to continuing to perpetuate the system.
I'm unsatisfied with the ubiquitous horse analogy as well. The economy exists to solve human problems, not horse problems. We are constantly generating new problems and new social performances. It would not surprise me if the economy of the future was based around elaborate, manpower-intensive tea-ceremony-like rituals or something equally preposterous. Human obsolescence is not inevitable, but might be engineered.
If, in the far future, there are greater returns from employing robots than humans, then those humans who need to work will starve.
Putting aside my dislike for considering horses as tools, you're missing an important point. Economies only have to function for those at the top in order to be promoted. You could say that the majority of humans are just seen as 'tools' to the people in power that are driven by profit. To them, as long as they get to maintain their quality of life, what do they care about the masses?
If you think this is far fetched, look at what's happening in places like Flint, Michigan. People were drinking poisoned water for decades, and those in charge knew about it. There's even a story that GM had to get a factory in Flint connected to the Detroit water supply because the Flint water was damaging their parts. Plus Flint is not an isolated case. Some people put profit ahead of people, and sadly a high number of those people are in positions of power.
Well, I labeled humans as tools as well, so I'm not treating horses any differently in that respect than I am people, so I think you inferred a slightly different connotation for tool than I meant. Interestingly, the ability to see horses as non-tools is possible largely because their usefulness as a tool was surpassed by other technology. The same with cats and dogs.
> You could say that the majority of humans are just seen as 'tools' to the people in power that are driven by profit.
Yes, that is one aspect of the current system. The main difference is that it's not the only aspect, as it was for significant periods of history for significant portions of the world.
> If you think this is far fetched, look at what's happening in places like Flint, Michigan. People were drinking poisoned water for decades, and those in charge knew about it.
This is only a counter-example if the problem comes out, everyone wants a change, and nothing happens, and then only somewhat, depending on how much people actually care. I'm not arguing that the world has magically eradicated corruption, negligence and shortsightedness, but I do believe that once exposed the public then gets to steer the response if they care enough. Special interests will still have a disproportionate amount of influence, but when the populace cares enough, that disproportionate influence is a drop in the bucket compared to the influence of an incited populace.
For you maybe, I'd say it's largely because they're sentient beings we share this planet with.
>"when the populace cares enough, that disproportionate influence is a drop in the bucket compared to the influence of an incited populace."
It's a nice idea, but compassion fatigue is a real phenomenon.
http://www.compassionfatigue.org/
If injustices were few and far between, I'd have more hope your approach could work, but considering the scale of the issues we face I don't think we can rely on mobilising the population into action over every injustice. Furthermore, the mass media still plays a large role in spreading misinformation, and smaller news outlets often lack the resources to carry out in-depth investigative journalism. I'd suggest any widespread political movement that doesn't tackle these issues head on is fighting an uphill battle from the start.
And my point is that a view such as this is a luxury people can now have because they are no longer required for survival. There have of course been people in the past that did not view these animals as tools, but for the vast majority of our history the vast majority saw them at least partially as a tool. The vast majority of people were seen as tools as well. Again, what I mean when I say tool and what you interpret when you read tool are very likely subtly different, otherwise I don't think you would have much objection. As I stated, I'm not treating them any different than people in this specific respect.
> It's a nice idea, but compassion fatigue is a real phenomenon.
Which doesn't really matter all that much when the whole point is that it may affect massive amounts of people. If it's affecting that many people, it's not compassion that's being tapped, but the changing circumstances of yourself and your immediate loved ones. Compassion isn't called for when it's happening to you; you don't become inured to pain like that when it's your own pain.
> I don't think we can rely on mobilising the population into action over every injustice.
I'm not proposing we do or can, for every injustice. I'm just noting that the people still have a massive amount of power, and when things affect them enough, they create change. The recent election is proof of this. People felt a change was needed, and felt they weren't being represented (whether true or not), and now we're in for something different. I don't think that necessarily means better, but I doubt it will be the status quo.
Unfortunately, there's a long history of people thinking of and using other people as tools.
Heidegger's question concerning technology is essential reading, but his basic argument is the technological process subordinates all others to be ends to itself. Notice how people don't so much adapt technology to their needs as adjust their needs to the available technology.
Please explain this basic fact to the people at Davos.
Another way of looking at this is that we weren't ever under threat of millions of displaced horses rising up and overthrowing the system. Since that is a possible outcome of too many unhappy people, changes will be made to ensure people have some base level of happiness on average to prevent that. It's one of the things that makes our current government as stable as it is - the need to respond to the people.