Date: Sat Mar 25 2000 - 10:53:52 PST
In a message dated 3/24/00 11:11:10 PM, email@example.com writes:
<<Adam Beberg's essay... posits that at some
point we will be able to replace any human with $1000 worth of
Give me a lump of technology that will, unattended, do as good a job
as a farrier at keeping horses shod, and I'll gladly give you $1000.
You may even be able to talk me into $10,000.
This is 200 years after the same economics and arguments attendant upon
industrialization. India, Braudel tells us, had all the technology for a
mechanized textile industry--and had all the design. What it lacked was the
incentive to put the machines in, because human labor was cheaper. In
Britain, where wages were higher, it was worth buying a machine and laying
off people. In the long run, of course (and not very long--a couple of
gnerations) it was also better for the people.
Count it good that we're expensive enough that someone would want to automate
us. Blacksmiths don't get paid well. In the long run, the capitalist devil
finds work for idle hands, especially skilled ones.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 27 2000 - 15:16:22 PST