[AviationAtom]

I always compare it to the age of the industrial revolution. I have no doubt you had stubborn old people saying: "Why would I need a machine to do what I can do just fine by hand??" Those people quickly found themselves at a disadvantage to those who choose not to fight change, but to embrace it and harness technological leaps to improve their productivity and output.

[happytoexplain]

Most people are not in a position to choose whether to embrace or reject. An individual is generally in a position to be harmed by or helped by the new thing, based on their role and the time they are alive.

Analogies are almost always an excuse to oversimplify. Just defend the thing on its own properties - not the properties of a conceptually similar thing that happened in the past.

[rhetocj23]

Thank you for saying this.

[beeflet]

The difference is that in the industrial revolution there was a migration from hard physical labor to cushy information work.

Now that information work is being automated, there will be nothing left!

This "embrace or die" strategy obviously doesn't work on a societal scale, it is an individual strategy.

[anon7725]

> in the industrial revolution there was a migration from hard physical labor to cushy information work.

The industrial revolution started in the early 1800's. It was a migration from hard physical labor outdoors, around the home and in small workshops to hard physical labor in factories.

[brainwad]

Most people are not doing "information" work. They provide interpersonal services, such as health/aged/childcare or retail/hospitality/leisure.

Techies are angsty because they are the small minority who will be disrupted. But let's not pretend most of the economy is even amenable to this technology.