How Moore's law stabbed us in the back

[John Hall]

> 
> I am ;)  Even if you buy the argument that people get more 
> expensive, 

It isn't an argument, it is an observation.  An observation that applies
in India as well as the US.  I'll admit it is counter-intuitive, but you
can't wave it away by saying "even if you buy ..."

> the number of tasks that require human input is 
> being reduced over time.  

Well, no.

There is no simple table of tasks.

Human desires are unlimited.  Therefore, tasks are unlimited.  By only
considering tasks that are _currently_ being preformed, you just
committed the fallacy we call "The Tyranny of the Status Quo".

To place it in a slightly different context, your failure here is the
same as people who call for greater efficiency to reduce resource use.
If you are _really_ concerned with total resource use, then increasing
efficiency has to be the worst thing you can do.  Increasing the
efficient utilization of a resource makes it effectively cheaper, which
means more of it is used.

That, probably in a nutshell, is why the luddites have always been
wrong.  Replacing humans with machines ultimately means you need even
more humans.  (Note, you often need _different_ humans.  There is a
human cost in that.)