Furthermore, while technology and humans are intertwined, that doesn't mean we should just accept the negative consequences of technological progress without trying to mitigate them. We need to find ways to use technology to benefit all people, not just the wealthy few. This will require careful planning and coordination, as well as a willingness to consider alternative approaches to economic growth and development. Ignoring the problem and just hoping for the best is not a viable solution.
The problem here is this technology very obviously pro-wealth concentration since I can’t see a way which in the limit doesn’t make everybody need it to stay competitive.
(If you can’t tell it’s the real me, not the AI - the AI is so much better at plausible rants it isn’t even close)
On the other hand, the capitalistic view of humanity as creatures of pure self interest or the economic notion of people being rationalist utility maximizers are also deeply flawed.
A technology comes along, and people who are capable and able, will be cut out of the equation - whether that's truck drivers, coders, whoever.
But, the group at the top who own everything are fine. Perhaps, in the dim and distant past, some progenitor did something of note (though I suspect it was most likely a crime) and for that they are able to buy into whatever the technology is (AI, self-driving cars, etc) and increase their fortunes.
This is nothing to do with merit. This is simply leveraging a fortune to buy the future too - and it is not complicated.
I don't object to people making lots of money on merit, but the rent-seeking elites we have, who steer the world in the direction that best maintains their situation, making slaves of the rest of us, is terrible. I don't expect anyone to help either - the governance structures we have and bent to their benefit too.
The only answers in my book, are for people to embrace their individuality, look to themselves for answers, reject the governance system and consciously uncouple from the dystopian system. A system that shows every indication of becoming far more dystopian, with technocrats being able to manage every resource, for every individual, in every circumstance, in the near future. Also unfortunate, is the fact that I don't think people are capable of making any such change, nor do they really care as long as they are bound and being entertained.
PS
> we should instead focus more on quality of life outcomes. They’ve been better than ever and the trend is improving over time.
For me, the idea of 'continuous improvements' or 'better quality of life' is only a story. The utility of the story is that serves to support the idea that the current direction of travel is better than the rest. This narrative gets your buy in and investment - and you cannot complain too harshly about your harness, as - you believe - the present to be so good!
As long as the history is always smeared, this will always be true, right? But who can really know what the past was like? Who can say the past was actually worse, even if that's what present day records tell us?
To me, this is a bountiful world, with plenty for everyone. But if one group takes access to all the resources, with the presumed consent of the rest, the gaslighting can seem like the 'only way' or the 'right way'. The constraints to living freely are artificial - we are in an open-air prison - and most of us seem to be happy about it!
Please help connect with reality.
If you and I were on a desert island, and attempted to forcibly extract 40% of your foraging efforts, saying I was going to invest it for the greater good, you would probably rise up and attack me, finding the idea unacceptable.
Now, if I and 5 others did the same you might feel forced to accept the proposal. I hope you would agree that the idea of forcible extraction of your wealth is still not right. Well, at what point does it become right? How many people need to go along with forcible extraction to make it a just social contract?
The answer is - it is never right. Any time even one individual is forced, it is wrong. But its not a case of one individual - we are all infringed upon multiple times daily, even though we are doing no harm to anyone.
This is a perverse system, that will even try to mould and entrain its citizens, for the benefit of a tiny minority who would preserve their power. (Its not even about money for them, as they control the printing presses, and means of production.)
People will often say anarchy would ensue if this system stopped - we are better with the devil we know (a hierarchical governance structure, that restrains the individual). But, the truth is, while we choose this system we can never be free - this is a certainty. We choose to always be slaves, and to be ruled by the worst of us (psychopaths who are unburdened by care towards others) who rise to the top.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that if someone agrees with your comment, it is because they already know what you're talking about in the context of the world we live in. For those who do not know what you're talking about, your comment does not enlighten in the least.
Put another way, I can agree with everything you said in the abstract, and still not see what it has to do with reality. I can set up all kinds of hypotheticals involving islands, and have them all be logically correct, and yet have nothing to do with how the world really is.
Giving examples is a rather basic expository technique. I'm not here to philosophize.
In fact - this is something I hope for - to make a reasoned philosophical case - to provide a hypothesis that other individuals can test for themselves and see if they find it to be true (as I have). This is contrast to the feel good nonsense most believe, despite no evidence, and no personal verification.
I'm not sure what concrete connection you require. What is it you want? Names, places?
Perhaps you should take a look at my submission and comment history - I do sometimes go into more detail.
I want what you mention here:
> This is contrast to the feel good nonsense most believe, despite no evidence, and no personal verification.
Evidence. As I said: Giving examples is a rather basic expository technique.
Trends in wealth inequality - https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
Rich kids stay rich, poor kids stay poor - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rich-kids-stay-rich-poo...
How rent seeking is at the heart of America’s economic troubles - https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/something-nothing-how-growin...
I could go on there’s about a million articles about this. I’m sure you’ll find something to criticize but at this point it’s like denying climate change.
You probably believe in gravity, why? Are alternative explanations possible?
You probably believe in evolution, why? Or perhaps you believe in some religious texts, again why? Did you verify anything?
You probably believe in h2o, why? Have you put hydrogen and oxygen gases together to make water?
You probably don't believe in the aliens we saw in the film 'Independence Day', why? Is it because you were told it is fiction?
You probably do believe the world is getting warmer, and that we are in danger of a mass extinction event, why? How was this proven to you? If one scientist says something, is that proof? If 100 say the same thing, is that better proof?
Etc.
What measure do you use to filter the truth from noise, lies and reality? Is it just what you are told - do you doubt your lying eyes? Or is there internal discernment and primary experience is the gold standard?
Further, humans will always value human labor, it’s an inherent bias. If a bot can automate something and do it better than us, then we will find something else it can’t do and then trade that thing.
Further, technology and humans are intertwined, you cannot separate the two. There’s no stopping this train so we should learn to embrace it and find creative ways to use it to our benefit.
At least that’s what puts me to sleep at night.