[hnaccy]

>Either humans are needed for a task or are not. Ideally we’re needed for as little as possible, freeing us up to do what we want rather than what has to be done.

If you're not valuable to the economic system you won't be treated well.

>It reminds me of NIMBYism. We’ve been automating entire professions for over a century now… but not MY profession…

Yes... it's self interest look at doctors or unions or guilds.

[Waterluvian]

The implicit part of the automation discussion is always: the current economic system is not the point and can evolve.

If we don’t assume that, then there is never any useful conversation possible on this topic. We end up with the ridiculous “we need jobs because that’s what we do!”

Which leads to another NIMBYism that I see when this conversation is had: “some generations will have to suffer through the friction of an economic revolution but not MY generation.” I think we need to be prepared that there’s always a chance that we get to be one of those generations.

You’re right that there’s a self-interest there. It makes it almost a good thing that engineers are far too interested in the means rather than the ends.

[hnaccy]

It's not just myself but my family and descendants who will also be impoverished.

If the holders of capital who are best positioned to reap nearly all the benefits of automation aren't willing work towards some more equitable result why would I want to help automation at all. I'd rather work against it.

"just ignore the rising inequality and complete collapse in value of human labour we can work out the details later once I hold all the cards" is not a compelling story.