May 12 2013: If you still think the US is still Feudal you need to look up the definition of Feudal. There is a strong Union movement in the United States but only for select industries and jobs. Teacher's unions, skilled laborers' unions, and airline unions to say a few.
Dude, I'm referring to what you are saying as philosophical and I was referring to not his talk. I made the observation to show the distinction between what he was talking about and what you are talking about. I'm not marginalizing what you are talking about by calling it philosophical. Political science, Marxism, those philosophical ideas agree with what you are saying and help bolster it.
The industrial revolution's damage was acknowledged and overcome. The government has provided incentives for companies to provide protection from the dangers that workers are exposed to. The philosophers of the time of the Industrial Revolution realized this like Waldo and commented on the cruelty of factories.
May 9 2013: Why do you have the need to avoid the term, philosophy? There is nothing unimportant or insignificant about political philosophy and ethics. I'm not making it as part of some contrived argument against you or anything.
Are you saying that history would have turned out better if the Industrial Revolution never occurred? Because that's really all I'm saying. Worker's unions could have only formed under the Industrial Revolution or am I wrong? Did feudalism, slavery, or serfdom have worker's unions?
May 9 2013: Because it's economic growth? The population increases over time and economic growth or an increase in production most be matched. Economic growth may unequally benefit the rich but that doesn't mean it has no benefit to the rest of us because economic stagnation would have worse effects, especially for the poor.
May 8 2013: So you choose not to hear the part where he talks about GDP? And GDP increases by percentage?
The growth as a it relates to quality of life is a philosophical growth. I didn't mean it as an argument against such an example of growth. I just wanted to point out what you are referring has no bearing or contention in his video. It is very similar to what utilitarian would say is growth. That is what I would say is growth in a society, That however isn't exactly measurable. It could be estimated and compared to.
The industrial revolution was terrible compared to today's quality of wealth but when compared to the socio-economic system before it was a slight improvement. It's definitely a slight improvement over serfdorm or the feudal system partly because it made the labor class much more valuable and important. Socialism was only possible because of the industrial revolution.
May 8 2013: Did you not notice he was referring to economic terms exclusively. When he refereed to growth he meant economic growth only and not a philosophical growth. Economic growth does equate to growing prosperity unless you think the Great Depression was prosperous.
May 8 2013: And why was the growth chart logarithmic but the income chart linear?
I believe he explained this as the decoupling of productivity and prosperity. Computers and technology has reduced the demand for labor and thereby the wages. Another fact I would like to add is the rise of women in the work place.
Where are the real counterpoints to human mass survival the case of the already polarized wealthy owning all the land, robots, patents, and networks?
This isn't a political talk. Karl Marx has already addressed this.
So when machines are doing all the work humans have done, how exactly are these teams of computers and humans going earn a living?
His point was that humans working in tandem with computers (outside of just designing them) can create a symbiotic relationship that could out compete with just computers. This is probably only true right now because computers cannot solve every problem yet due to computational limitations.
Mar 3 2013: You have no idea the difficulty of developing a refrigerator efficiently enough to compete with other companies. As a technician or even the engineer yourself, you do not have the knowledge, skills, infrastructure, and capital to make a refrigerator much less one that is efficiently done and done timely.
This isn't just making furniture or making food. Refrigeration has steep market entry costs associated with it like any other electronic home appliance.
Jan 12 2013: There's a difference between letting the water run when you aren't using it versus using water for a less then necessary use like a swimming pool. How you define what waste assumes a certain philosophical position that unless it is vital to your physical health it isn't necessary. Human beings require some form of entertainment and other needs not directly required for physical health.
America and most develop countries do create a lot of waste or waste a lot of energy. That however is because of the garbage we produce and bad practices not because how we choose to use that energy is some how unnecessary.
Nov 25 2012: To all of the people who wish to question the scientific validity of her talk, fine, but do not come to any conclusions until you read the original research and find faults there. This is a talk for the general public, it is meant to be brief and light on the details in order to cover a large body of research in a short amount of time.
Questioning someone's research without researching their research shows your bias.
Err you want someone to design an experiment to show what is the best use of a person's time?
Instead of making arguments against a talk by making the assumption that she mentioned all of the details of her and other's studies. Why do you read the paper they probably published and see if this is truly the case.
Due to time restrains, most of the details of the experiment are omitted. So read the paper if you want to really find out if the experiments she is citing is not conducted correctly.
TEDCred score: +4.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Erik Brynjolfsson: The key to growth? Race with the machines
Dude, I'm referring to what you are saying as philosophical and I was referring to not his talk. I made the observation to show the distinction between what he was talking about and what you are talking about. I'm not marginalizing what you are talking about by calling it philosophical. Political science, Marxism, those philosophical ideas agree with what you are saying and help bolster it.
The industrial revolution's damage was acknowledged and overcome. The government has provided incentives for companies to provide protection from the dangers that workers are exposed to. The philosophers of the time of the Industrial Revolution realized this like Waldo and commented on the cruelty of factories.
A reply on Talk: Erik Brynjolfsson: The key to growth? Race with the machines
Are you saying that history would have turned out better if the Industrial Revolution never occurred? Because that's really all I'm saying. Worker's unions could have only formed under the Industrial Revolution or am I wrong? Did feudalism, slavery, or serfdom have worker's unions?
A reply on Talk: Erik Brynjolfsson: The key to growth? Race with the machines
A reply on Talk: Erik Brynjolfsson: The key to growth? Race with the machines
The growth as a it relates to quality of life is a philosophical growth. I didn't mean it as an argument against such an example of growth. I just wanted to point out what you are referring has no bearing or contention in his video. It is very similar to what utilitarian would say is growth. That is what I would say is growth in a society, That however isn't exactly measurable. It could be estimated and compared to.
The industrial revolution was terrible compared to today's quality of wealth but when compared to the socio-economic system before it was a slight improvement. It's definitely a slight improvement over serfdorm or the feudal system partly because it made the labor class much more valuable and important. Socialism was only possible because of the industrial revolution.
A reply on Talk: Erik Brynjolfsson: The key to growth? Race with the machines
A reply on Talk: Erik Brynjolfsson: The key to growth? Race with the machines
I believe he explained this as the decoupling of productivity and prosperity. Computers and technology has reduced the demand for labor and thereby the wages. Another fact I would like to add is the rise of women in the work place.
Where are the real counterpoints to human mass survival the case of the already polarized wealthy owning all the land, robots, patents, and networks?
This isn't a political talk. Karl Marx has already addressed this.
So when machines are doing all the work humans have done, how exactly are these teams of computers and humans going earn a living?
His point was that humans working in tandem with computers (outside of just designing them) can create a symbiotic relationship that could out compete with just computers. This is probably only true right now because computers cannot solve every problem yet due to computational limitations.
A reply on Talk: Jennifer Granholm: A clean energy proposal -- race to the top!
This isn't just making furniture or making food. Refrigeration has steep market entry costs associated with it like any other electronic home appliance.
A reply on Talk: Amory Lovins on winning the oil endgame
America and most develop countries do create a lot of waste or waste a lot of energy. That however is because of the garbage we produce and bad practices not because how we choose to use that energy is some how unnecessary.
A comment on Talk: Daphne Bavelier: Your brain on video games
Questioning someone's research without researching their research shows your bias.
A reply on Talk: Daphne Bavelier: Your brain on video games
Err you want someone to design an experiment to show what is the best use of a person's time?
Instead of making arguments against a talk by making the assumption that she mentioned all of the details of her and other's studies. Why do you read the paper they probably published and see if this is truly the case.
Due to time restrains, most of the details of the experiment are omitted. So read the paper if you want to really find out if the experiments she is citing is not conducted correctly.