Whose Lives Have Value?

[chewybrian]

All of this begs a key question related to this thread's question: If automation displaces most people, do the displaced have any value at all?

You only need to look at the value of the homeless today.

OK, so if a person doesn't live in a home they do not have any objective value

It's easy enough to argue that all value is subjective, and that therefore nobody and nothing has 'objective value'. Tulips were more valuable than gold to some people, for a while. Maybe you mean 'intrinsic value'? 'Objective value' is somewhat meaningless, as objective means it should be visible or understandable to everyone who is being honest, and value is whatever the individual decides it is.

What I was getting at is that the homeless are devalued by most people most of the time. We should value them as human beings and want to help them get back on track or at least live with some dignity, but that's just my subjective opinion. My observation is that few people give them much thought or want to place a priority on doing something for them. It's easier to ignore them or blame them for their own plight, which may or may not be fair for some of them. If there were no jobs for most of us, we would become just as invisible.

[Steve3007]

It looks like the duplicate topic was deleted. That's a pity, I think. Being an identical twin doesn't mean one is any less valued. Identical topics, like identical twins, go on to develop in their own ways.

[chewybrian]

All of this begs a key question related to this thread's question: If automation displaces most people, do the displaced have any value at all?

You only need to look at the value of the homeless today.

Yes, but they are a minority. I think the dynamic will be very different when a majority are destitute. To start, studies have shown that those who suffer hardship along with most of the community fare far better emotionally than those suffering hardship where most people are well off. If everyone is in the same boat, it''s never as bad.

Will this horde of people be valued by the owners of automated services? I'm thinking that, if the masses have little wealth, then there's no need for corporations to seek their custom, and they will instead operate B2B. The only use I can imagine for the masses then would be as research subjects, but maybe that's my lack of imagination.

Even this little bit of optimism seems unfounded and out of character for you. Maybe I could propose a better analogy of the people to whom we outsource menial labor. Does the average American give any thought to the life of the man or woman in Pakistan who makes their cargo shorts or sweaters? Do those folks have any real value to us as subjects rather than objects? The business owners value the reduction in costs, and the consumers value the reduction in prices. But, who values the human being at the other end of that supply chain? Who places a priority on or even gives a passing thought to their dignity, to helping them to self-actualize and become the best and the happiest person they can be?

So, as the automation proceeds and advances, we will edge closer to the status of those people overseas. We will continue to lose value as employees and lose buying power as a result, and drift toward the status that those overseas workers enjoy today. We've already taken many steps down that path. There was a break very evident in the chart where we simply reverted to viewing people as tools rather than individuals. Of course, this happened in the past, but we had made progress in treating people better, and we are backsliding now. In addition to receiving ever less pay relative to productivity, we've lost defined pensions, many other benefits, job security, even full-time working hours and set schedules for many. Unfathomably, many of the people most negatively impacted by this change have been convinced that they are the beneficiaries. I don't know how we can reverse the trend.

[Nick_A]

This idea needs a separate thread in the hopes of attracting those open to the idea as opposed to arguing dead societal reactions

Sy wrote

Oh yes, there are those who are "in" and those who are "out". And rest assured, one by one those contributing people will disappear. I saw it happen in music. Session work simply dried up because one machine with a programmer could replace an entire band or an orchestra. Increasingly, avatars will be used instead of actors. Once the avatars find their way out of the uncanny valley they will replace actors.

Yes dead labor will continue to replace living labor at an alarming rate but what is actually lost?.

If we don't knw the value of life how can we hope to know the value of work. Simone offers a clue

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... a%2C%2094).
Abstract

This essay argues that Simone Weil appropriates Marx's notion of labor as life activity in order to reposition work as the site of spirituality. Rather than locating spirituality in a religious tradition, doctrine, profession of faith, or in personal piety, Weil places it in the capacity to work. Spirit arises in the activity of living, and more specifically in laboring—in one's engagement with materiality. Utilizing Marx's distinction between living and dead labor, I show how Weil develops a critique of capital as a “force” that disrupts the individual's relation to her own work by reducing it to the mere activity of calculable “production.” Capital reduces labor to an abstraction and thereby uproots human subjectivity, on a systemic scale, from its connection to living praxis, or what Weil calls spirituality. Life itself is exchanged for a simulacrum of life. In positioning living labor as spiritual, Weil's work offers a corrective to these deadening practices.

When labor is dead, it is non spiritual but purely mechanical like the machine it is trying to copy. But the arts, some art , is capable of producing living labor which serves as a middle between mechanics and consciousness. When music becomes mechanical it is no longer alive but just a "mere activity of calculable “production.” Pragmatic music assumes that dead labor and living labor are the same.

A healthy free society needs some living labor. Take it away and the society must die. It is as simple as that.

[Steve3007]

Nick, did you say that you're a pianist by profession?

[Nick_A]

Nick, did you say that you're a pianist by profession?

No, I'm a keyboard player/vocalist/humorist who before the pandemic was active in nursing homes and piano bars. There is a great deal of truth in humor as opposed to modern comedy specializing in ridicule.

[GE Morton]

Until the disparities reach a threshold. This is the first generation for a long time who offer their children less opportunity than they themselves enjoyed.

That remains to be seen. But if it proves true, it will be due to idiotic government policies, not to automation, which has consistently proved itself to be beneficial throughout history.

Listen you errant women, you talk about "doomsayers" but I am just talking about the bleeding obvious because the transition is happening blatantly as we speak. Your dainty feminine denial cannot counter the flow of history. Zero percent interest rates. QE like no one has ever seen. Automation replacing white collar work. These are uncharted waters.

Uncharted waters lie ahead of every technological innovation. The clever hunter-gatherer tribeswoman who discovered that if she planted some seeds from barley gathered today she would have more barely in a few months could not have imagined what that discovery portended for human society. When Intel developed the 4004 processor in 1970 for a Japanese manufacturer of calculators, no one could have predicted the transformation that device and its successors would have on the economy, and on society generally, over the next 40 years (that chip, in turn, depended upon the invention of the transistor in 1948 --- arguably the most important invention of the 20th century).

Oh yes, there are those who are "in" and those who are "out". And rest assured, one by one those contributing people will disappear. I saw it happen in music. Session work simply dried up because one machine with a programmer could replace an entire band or an orchestra. Increasingly, avatars will be used instead of actors. Once the avatars find their way out of the uncanny valley they will replace actors.

Who will be producing the avatars?

That is, BTW, a view contrary to that of most musicians, who see technology as a boon, not a threat to their livelihoods, because it allows them to reach a far larger audience than they could performing in clubs, frees them from the control of record companies, and enables endless new ways to create and manipulate musical notes.

https://www.music.org/index.php?option= ... temid=3665

You did indeed, old girl.

Sorry ma'am!

[GE Morton]

Does the average American give any thought to the life of the man or woman in Pakistan who makes their cargo shorts or sweaters?

No, for the simple but excellent reason that if we tried to "give some thought" to everyone who had some role in producing everything we buy or use, we'd have time to think of nothing else --- such as how to improve our own lives --- and still never get to the end of that list. If we do happen to think about some of those people, and we're not deluded lefties, we'll be happy we could help them improve their own lives buying their products and thus giving them a better job than they probably ever had before.

Who places a priority on or even gives a passing thought to their dignity, to helping them to self-actualize and become the best and the happiest person they can be?

Virtually no one. That is because everyone places the priority on their own self-actualization and securing their own happiness, and expect that people in Pakistan will be doing the same. The latter will not be fretting over our self-actualization either. That is what "self-actualization" means.

In addition to receiving ever less pay relative to productivity, we've lost defined pensions, many other benefits, job security, even full-time working hours and set schedules for many. Unfathomably, many of the people most negatively impacted by this change have been convinced that they are the beneficiaries. I don't know how we can reverse the trend.

Those constantly repeated complaints about the "wage-productivity gap" are specious, being based on the false assumption that wages should track increases in productivity. The increases in productivity over the last 20-30 years have been due almost entirely to improvements in technology, not to improvements in worker talents, skills, or experience. Thus the benefits accrue to the capital which financed the technology, not to the worker who operates the machine. That worker's contribution to the production process has not changed; hence neither has the value of his labor.

Nonetheless, as your own chart (and all others) shows, wages have increased over that period, in constant dollars --- though the current government-created inflation spiral will likely erase most of that gain.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/27/wages-a ... y-cut.html

[Steve3007]

Nick, did you say that you're a pianist by profession?

No, I'm a keyboard player/vocalist/humorist who before the pandemic was active in nursing homes and piano bars.

Interesting!

There is a great deal of truth in humor as opposed to modern comedy specializing in ridicule.

I agree that there can be a great deal of truth in humour. I think the question of what makes something humorous is an interesting one in its own right. I don't necessarily agree, though, that modern comedy specializes in ridicule. Some does, no doubt. But there is a lot of comedy around, and a lot of hybrid stuff that is humorous but not overtly comedic. In fact, there's a continuous spectrum from straight drama to straightforward play-it-for-laughs comedy. I'd say comedy that ridicules or pokes fun at people is quite a small sub-genre, at least of the comedy that I'm aware of.

[Steve3007]

Comedy that ridicules without empathy is usually quite cartoonish and two dimensional. I think the best kind of character based comedy is that which presents a well-rounded and believable character in which we can see elements of ourselves and/or people we know. We can see glimpses of why the character is as he/she is.

[Nick_A]

All of this begs a key question related to this thread's question: If automation displaces most people, do the displaced have any value at all?

You only need to look at the value of the homeless today.

OK, so if a person doesn't live in a home they do not have any objective value

It's easy enough to argue that all value is subjective, and that therefore nobody and nothing has 'objective value'. Tulips were more valuable than gold to some people, for a while. Maybe you mean 'intrinsic value'? 'Objective value' is somewhat meaningless, as objective means it should be visible or understandable to everyone who is being honest, and value is whatever the individual decides it is.

What I was getting at is that the homeless are devalued by most people most of the time. We should value them as human beings and want to help them get back on track or at least live with some dignity, but that's just my subjective opinion. My observation is that few people give them much thought or want to place a priority on doing something for them. It's easier to ignore them or blame them for their own plight, which may or may not be fair for some of them. If there were no jobs for most of us, we would become just as invisible.

I know you are referring to differing opinions on the homeless. I refer to objective opinions some say doesn't exist. Put a five dollar bill, a twenty, a fifty and a hundred dollar bill on a table and ask which is more valuable. Subjective societal opinions will say the hundred. Objective values would say they are the same being made from the same paper.

Objective values refer to the great chain of being within our Source as the body of God. Of course I know it is nonsense for secularism but I keep the idea alive for those aware of it and who I could talk with.

Does evolved Man have a greater objective value and higher on the evolutionary chain than animal Man? Can Man increase its objective value through conscious contemplation? Perhaps it is apriori knowledge which can be remembered.

Subjective values are concerned with what we do while objective values are concerned with what we are. Can they be reconciled? A real philosophical question

[chewybrian]

Nonetheless, as your own chart (and all others) shows, wages have increased over that period, in constant dollars --- though the current government-created inflation spiral will likely erase most of that gain.

Yes, it clearly shows that productivity rose by 150% since the Disco era, and the workers got a 10% trickle down increase. Now where do you suppose the rest of that increased productivity landed?



So, some self-absorbed lunatic gets to have himself shot into space for giggles, but we got a 10% raise over two or three generations. That was all lost by the increased taxes on the middle class, the lost benefits and the burden of increased debt that went to fund the free ride for the wealthy. Most people have lost ground in my lifetime while a few made lots of money they don't need and can't even spend.

[Nick_A]

Nick, did you say that you're a pianist by profession?

No, I'm a keyboard player/vocalist/humorist who before the pandemic was active in nursing homes and piano bars.

Interesting!

There is a great deal of truth in humor as opposed to modern comedy specializing in ridicule.

I agree that there can be a great deal of truth in humour. I think the question of what makes something humorous is an interesting one in its own right. I don't necessarily agree, though, that modern comedy specializes in ridicule. Some does, no doubt. But there is a lot of comedy around, and a lot of hybrid stuff that is humorous but not overtly comedic. In fact, there's a continuous spectrum from straight drama to straightforward play-it-for-laughs comedy. I'd say comedy that ridicules or pokes fun at people is quite a small sub-genre, at least of the comedy that I'm aware of.

There was a classic old TV show called Candid Camera. It enabled person to be caught in the act of being themselves. We laugh at ourselves. When we experience what we do it is is humorous. The comedy I refer to invites an audience to egoistically laugh at others.

Humor doesn't require profanity while comedy does to please the crowd. Why is a good psychological question.

[GE Morton]

Yes, it clearly shows that productivity rose by 150% since the Disco era, and the workers got a 10% trickle down increase. Now where do you suppose the rest of that increased productivity landed?

I answered that in the previous post, and explained why it went where it did.

So, some self-absorbed lunatic gets to have himself shot into space for giggles, but we got a 10% raise over two or three generations.

That "lunatic" produced the wealth which paid for that frivolity. You didn't. Are you suggesting he had some duty to give some of it to you instead?

[Sy Borg]

Until the disparities reach a threshold. This is the first generation for a long time who offer their children less opportunity than they themselves enjoyed.

That remains to be seen. But if it proves true, it will be due to idiotic government policies, not to automation, which has consistently proved itself to be beneficial throughout history.

... you talk about "doomsayers" but I am just talking about the bleeding obvious because the transition is happening blatantly as we speak. Your dainty feminine denial cannot counter the flow of history. Zero percent interest rates. QE like no one has ever seen. Automation replacing white collar work. These are uncharted waters.

Uncharted waters lie ahead of every technological innovation. The clever hunter-gatherer tribeswoman who discovered that if she planted some seeds from barley gathered today she would have more barely in a few months could not have imagined what that discovery portended for human society. When Intel developed the 4004 processor in 1970 for a Japanese manufacturer of calculators, no one could have predicted the transformation that device and its successors would have on the economy, and on society generally, over the next 40 years (that chip, in turn, depended upon the invention of the transistor in 1948 --- arguably the most important invention of the 20th century).

There are especially strange waters. We are living within a major turning point in, not only human history, but the planet's history. As I say, the young today are the first generation for a long time whose prospects are worse than those of their parents. Consider all that terrific progress of technology, all the benefits its brought. Where did they go? Now young people have pretty well no hope of owning their own home, and many have no idea how they will be able to earn steadily enough to have a family.

It's not only the dumb government policies that failed to address inequality caused by economies of scale at fault; the issues are global. It's also a combination of endemic global corruption, a fiat currency system in the process of inflating beyond usefulness, automation of work and associated unemployment, globalisation and evolution.

Oh yes, there are those who are "in" and those who are "out". And rest assured, one by one those contributing people will disappear. I saw it happen in music. Session work simply dried up because one machine with a programmer could replace an entire band or an orchestra. Increasingly, avatars will be used instead of actors. Once the avatars find their way out of the uncanny valley they will replace actors.

Who will be producing the avatars?

That is, BTW, a view contrary to that of most musicians, who see technology as a boon, not a threat to their livelihoods, because it allows them to reach a far larger audience than they could performing in clubs, frees them from the control of record companies, and enables endless new ways to create and manipulate musical notes.

A small minority may work, but most will go. Single programmers have been replacing entire orchestras for years.

If one spends many years learning to physically play an instrument, then the chances are you want to play the physical instrument, not program it. Precious little machine music - drum machines with sequencers - interests me. As Nick said, there's no life to it. However, those raised with the machine music can't tell the difference so ever more of this soulless music will be produced.

You did indeed, old girl.

Sorry ma'am!

Cheers :) Personally, I don't care for titles. To me, the semantic of "Sir" conjures up images of knights in armour and "ma'am" makes me think of the Queen.