> The make-work bias is best illustrated by a story, perhaps apocryphal, of an economist who visits China under Mao Zedong. He sees hundreds of workers building a dam with shovels. He asks: “Why don’t they use a mechanical digger?” “That would put people out of work,” replies the foreman. “Oh,” says the economist, “I thought you were making a dam. If it’s jobs you want, take away their shovels and give them spoons.” ~ The Economist, Vol. 383, p.42

1. Why would it frustrate you? I do the job in the field everyday. I am frustrated that my back and knees hurt. That I have to work in the sun and can’t find enough markets.

2. There is already a lot of technology in what you eat. Mechanization in factory style farms, cold supply chain, blockchain for lettuce at Walmart..the stock system..the inventory..everything. Not to mention that your food chain is owned by agri fertilizers and pesticide companies..and gmo seed. Bayer owns Monsanto now. The company that used slave labor in nazi concentration camps bought out the company that made agent orange. And that’s who is making your food and medicine.

3. I am also frustrated that farming methods aka hard work meant to feed a lot less people is now expected to feed close to 10 billion by 2050. On less land.

> blockchain for lettuce at Walmart

Who would have thought, it's actually real: https://www.ibm.com/blockchain/solutions/food-trust. It seems to be based on Hyperledger Fabric, which apparently does not require proof-of-work. That's amazing, and thanks for mentioning it. This is the first non-disastrous blockchain project in active use that I've ever heard of.

Blockchain is very exciting. I can see how it can help with traceability and food safety. It can record when pallets were loaded or the date when it was sowed, harvested etc, but it’s also possible to generate this after ..hypothetically..I buy strawberries from Costco and pass off on my own. Of course, won’t work when Costco is more expensive than wholesale. But I am just saying that blockchain is not entirely about ensuring trust/transparency here. Involvement of IBM also likely means that it’s not decentralized. Produce is a physical good and not a digital transaction.

It’s overkill for lettuce sold to Walmart, but I can see why Walmart wants to try it. I am curious to see how we can implement and use blockchain appropriately in the supply and value chain of food. Walmart mandating lettuce blockchain and patterning with IBM is a good start, but honestly at this level, it can also be done with just well managed database systems. But I am all for it! I am excited to see where this will lead.

I also can...intuitively only because I can’t articulate it or prove it.. see this as ‘laying down of the road’ before the town is built. Exciting.

> Couldn't we just slow down tech a little bit and let people do some good old hard work to keep getting their cut? Frustrating.

I'd much rather we eliminate the need for jobs so people don't need to work anymore. Working sucks. I think I work at a great place. I still wouldn't do it if I didn't get paid.

Serious question: What would you do if you didn't have to work?

I work even if I don't have to. It's about using one's potential, if nothing else. In the grand scheme of things, I'm grateful for all the progress other people worked on to achieve before me and which I'm benefiting from, and I wish to do my part and leave the world a bit better for others too.

Probably the same things that my work funds currently but more/better!

Piano, music composition, hanging out with friends/family, and social work.

Basically the things in my life that I think actually matter to me.

I would do what I do now, but I'd not feel threatened.

I'd still code a lot. Just not software of dubious social value that's meant to make someone else money.

I'd go hiking a lot. I would also teach what I know.

We could tax the wealthy and spend more on education, universal basic income, etc

There’s not enough political will though.

How much more should the wealthy be taxed? Who decides who is wealthy? For example, you are probably massively wealthier than many hundreds of millions of people in the world. How much should you be giving? How much would that contribute to your lofty goals?

When we get to a point of automated food production, these goals aren't that lofty.

Agree but political will is a tricky thing here.

How "representative" of our country (assuming you're in the U.S. apologies if you're not) are our politicians?

How many are "wealthy" vs. the general population etc.?

> What frustrates me is the tendency to use technology to replace humans beings.

It's a huge cost center, and the amount of labor required to operate a farm is considerably less than what it has been in the past. It seems like the major bottleneck is harvesting, packaging and shipping the majority of your product to market, it's a natural place to look for gains.

The moneymakers are the landholders anyways.

> Then you don't know how to solve the shortcut in jobs.

Most harvesting work is done on a "piece work" system. These aren't jobs that have any future in them because there are absolutely no skills required and no reason for an employer to develop them and they're highly seasonal.

> Couldn't we just slow down tech a little bit and let people do some good old hard work to keep getting their cut?

There may be cases where this is true, but when the labor is literally "just pulling food out of the ground and putting it in a box" I don't think the use of technology is an inherent problem.

Did we not have this conversation in the 19th century?

We did, and we keep having it, because the problem still remains - people need to work to earn a living. We'll stop having this conversation when we'll solve that problem.