6 ms·

Long ago most humans spent their time and energy on farming so they wouldn't starve. We automated that with a couple of Agricultural Revolutions. Then the majo

Long ago most humans spent their time and energy on farming so they wouldn't starve. We automated that with a couple of Agricultural Revolutions. Then the majority of us spent our time and energy in factories. That got automated during the Industrial Revolution. So we moved to service and knowledge jobs. And now we're potentialy seeing the start of automation in those knowledge jobs. Will this be a painful revolution as the Industrial one? Where will we spend our time and energy on next? > Where will we be in the future? A German named Karl wrote a book with an answer to that question 150 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital

seadan83 3y ago
TL;DR Premise is kinda all wrong, but IMO some interesting questions nonetheless are posed at the end of your comment. First agricultural revolution was farming, that allowed for cities. Second agricultural revolution overlaps with the industrial revolution. That was the transition from having only bio-mechanical energy available to also mechanical energy (the only source of power was no longer just muscles, but then things like steam power). The industrial revolution ended in the mid 1800s - a full century before the transition to service and knowledge jobs. Still, by the end of the second agricultural revolution, 50% of the labor force are still farmers. The industrial revolution was done decades before manufacturing labor participation peaked (in the US). The industrial revolution was NOT the shift into factories, it was the advent of steam engine and steam power. You didn't have to pull a cart with a horse anymore, there were steam engines (trains). This is WAY before the model T comes out. The idea that the majority of laborers hopped (in discrete steps) from farming, to factories, to service jobs is wrong. The percentage shift is smaller and more gradual than would be commonly believed, and plays over relatively long periods of time, most of those time periods playing out over just the last 400 years. > Long ago most humans spent their time and energy on farming so they wouldn't starve. We automated that with a couple of Agricultural Revolutions. This statements is misleading to the point of being incorrect. This resource states there were three major agricultural revolutions [1] Other resources refer to "The agricultural revolution", which was the second. "The Second Agricultural Revolution was both a contributing factor and consequence of the Industrial Revolution, which took place in the 1700s-1800s. As labor productivity and agricultural technology use increased and the population boomed due to a growing food supply, many people were left without land or work in rural areas. Thus, they migrated to the city, typically to find work in manufacturing." [1] Note, by 1800 in the US, still 80% of the labor force worked as farmers. [2] Thus, there was a shedding from 80%+ to 80%, and many of those left for other work, namely cities. It's not the case though that the agricultural revolution caused humans to go from 90% farming to 10% farming, with everyone there going into manufacturing - it's much small numbers and much more gradual shift that occurred over a few centuries (notably, just the last 3) The breakdown: - first agricultural revolution allowed humans to farm and not be nomadic (12k years ago, I'm still shocked by how relatively recent this was) - second agricultural revolution leveraged the industrial revolution, where a lot fewer people were needed for farming (but still a large number were required) - third agriculatural revolution was in the 1900s and lead to much better crop yields - arguably there is a 4th agricultural revolution underway today. I was talking to a farmer a year ago and they stated how amazing the tractors are now. They literally drive themselves & combine GPS data and automated controls to control the fertilization and watering down to the square foot. Still today, 20% of the total global population is doing subsistence agriculture. [3] I would guess that a large fraction are still growing their own gardens for food supplementation. > That got automated during the Industrial Revolution. So we moved to service and knowledge jobs. "The Industrial Revolution was the transition from creating goods by hand to using machines. Its start and end are widely debated by scholars, but the period generally spanned from about 1760 to 1840" [4] The industrial revolution is the transition from near exclusive muscle power (humans/oxen/horses) to steam power, machine power. From 1800 to 1860 the percentage of people (in the US) that were farmers went from 80% to 50%. It takes a lot longer before that percentage falls below 20%. The transition to service and knowledge jobs wasn't until the 1960s, that's about 200 years after the industrial revolution. Still though, I can't find a single resource that shows US manufacturing percentage was ever greater than 30% of the workforce. The resources I find show there was a consistent increase in manufacturing output until essentially the late 1900s (speaking of the the US only), while at the same time there was a reduction in the percentage workforce in manufacturing. > And now we're potentialy seeing the start of automation in those knowledge jobs. Potentially is the operative word. "ThePrimeTime" aka "Primeagen" recently did a video on Devin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80MPXoRHvK8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80MPXoRHvK8 (start at 8:50, until about 9:45 mark) His assessment, until Devin is 100x more powerful, two orders of magnitude better, only then will Devin even potentially start taking over jobs from humans. I generally agree with that take. I think we get there in maybe 20 to 40 years from now. Personally, that idea seems similar to me as the idea that cars are imminently about to be self driving and you can lease your self driving car as a taxi during work-hours. That idea was floated by Musk since 2014, and every year since, that was going to be a reality within one year. [5] -------------------------- I think your last questions though are very interesting, namely these: "Will this be a painful revolution as the Industrial one? Where will we spend our time and energy on next?" Though, I find your premises to be inaccurate, and your timeline for when this next revolution is off by at least 30 years. It's yet to even start. I'll note we're still living through the automation of the service industry, that revolution is not yet done - computers have not yet eaten the world. As an example, the first successful 'pets.com' is still less than 20 years old, and that is just the act of automating a store-front to purchase cat food - plenty of examples of industries and services that are still largely paper based. A couple years ago I interviewed for a startup that was automating food chain supply, they noted that industry is still almost entirely paper based, and that is in 2021! [1] https://populationeducation.org/a-timeline-of-the-three-major-agricultural-revolutions-in-history/ https://populationeducation.org/a-timeline-of-the-three-majo... [2] https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=11&psid=3837 https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=11... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_agriculture [4] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrialization-labor-and-life/ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrial... [5] https://futurism.com/video-elon-musk-promising-self-driving-cars https://futurism.com/video-elon-musk-promising-self-driving-...
MSFT_Edging 3y ago
I'd love to live in a Communist society. I think our technological capabilities are to the point where a centrally managed economy is not only possible, but extremely doable. The main issue being, our governments and society have made it clear that the opinions of those who hold Capital are far more important than the unproductive surplus. Our entire society now is based around consuming cheap products we don't need, because the previous cheap products wore out prematurely. The focus on a profit motive tosses aside great discoveries that are unable to turn a profit, while encouraging useless advancements that only degrade our lives. IE advertisements make money, but I've never met someone who believes their life to be improved by ads, except for a minority of shareholders. On the other hand, there have been many medical advancements all but scrapped because the lack of profit outweighed the human benefit. The profit motive is incompatible with a robust society. I won't pretend to have the answers on what should be done and how to implement it, but I know that our current system cannot last forever.
- andruby 3y ago
  Thank you for the thoughtful post. I hope that the current circumstances trigger a renewed interest in thinking about how we organise our society. It would be great if that could be done rationally, without taboos. I don't have high hopes though. The people in power want to stay in power, and any hint at socialistic or communistic ideas are quickly shot down. Communism as implemented by Soviet Russia was pretty bad and failed, but that doesn't mean that the ideas of Karl Marx are all terrible. I like the idea of a centrally managed economy but I don't think it's a stable system. There's too much opportunity for abuse by the central power. I hope we explore the spectrum between extreme capitalism and extreme communism. Does anyone have any reading recommendations that explore these kinds of economic and societal system?
  - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
    I suggest actually reading up on how past or existing Communist countries worked. The Soviet system eventually failed, yes, but not before great strides in a lot of areas. There is an incredible amount of nuance lost in how the west generally talks about these systems, some from general misunderstandings, some from Orientalism, some from downright nationalism. For example, the "soviet" system was a bottom up democratic system where labor unions effectively formed the foundation. There was a lot of thought into how the system was formed and even the CIA admitted Stalin was more of a team captain than a dictator. Hell you can get a lot of interesting tidbits into declassified reports on the Soviet Union. There's the famous one about how the soviets were better fed than their American counterparts, despite the claims of breadlines. It's really quite sad that we are basically not allowed to learn from the positive aspects of these projects. For example, people hate on Stalin a lot, but his 5-year plans were so wildly productive and successful, even a young South Korea deep in a western backed dictatorship copied the idea in order to boot strap their industrial base. China continues to use this idea, the simple method of setting goals in the short, medium, and long term in order to use resources effectively.

seadan83 3y ago

TL;DR Premise is kinda all wrong, but IMO some interesting questions nonetheless are posed at the end of your comment. First agricultural revolution was farming, that allowed for cities. Second agricultural revolution overlaps with the industrial revolution. That was the transition from having only bio-mechanical energy available to also mechanical energy (the only source of power was no longer just muscles, but then things like steam power). The industrial revolution ended in the mid 1800s - a full century before the transition to service and knowledge jobs. Still, by the end of the second agricultural revolution, 50% of the labor force are still farmers. The industrial revolution was done decades before manufacturing labor participation peaked (in the US). The industrial revolution was NOT the shift into factories, it was the advent of steam engine and steam power. You didn't have to pull a cart with a horse anymore, there were steam engines (trains). This is WAY before the model T comes out. The idea that the majority of laborers hopped (in discrete steps) from farming, to factories, to service jobs is wrong. The percentage shift is smaller and more gradual than would be commonly believed, and plays over relatively long periods of time, most of those time periods playing out over just the last 400 years. > Long ago most humans spent their time and energy on farming so they wouldn't starve. We automated that with a couple of Agricultural Revolutions. This statements is misleading to the point of being incorrect. This resource states there were three major agricultural revolutions [1] Other resources refer to "The agricultural revolution", which was the second. "The Second Agricultural Revolution was both a contributing factor and consequence of the Industrial Revolution, which took place in the 1700s-1800s. As labor productivity and agricultural technology use increased and the population boomed due to a growing food supply, many people were left without land or work in rural areas. Thus, they migrated to the city, typically to find work in manufacturing." [1] Note, by 1800 in the US, still 80% of the labor force worked as farmers. [2] Thus, there was a shedding from 80%+ to 80%, and many of those left for other work, namely cities. It's not the case though that the agricultural revolution caused humans to go from 90% farming to 10% farming, with everyone there going into manufacturing - it's much small numbers and much more gradual shift that occurred over a few centuries (notably, just the last 3) The breakdown: - first agricultural revolution allowed humans to farm and not be nomadic (12k years ago, I'm still shocked by how relatively recent this was) - second agricultural revolution leveraged the industrial revolution, where a lot fewer people were needed for farming (but still a large number were required) - third agriculatural revolution was in the 1900s and lead to much better crop yields - arguably there is a 4th agricultural revolution underway today. I was talking to a farmer a year ago and they stated how amazing the tractors are now. They literally drive themselves & combine GPS data and automated controls to control the fertilization and watering down to the square foot. Still today, 20% of the total global population is doing subsistence agriculture. [3] I would guess that a large fraction are still growing their own gardens for food supplementation. > That got automated during the Industrial Revolution. So we moved to service and knowledge jobs. "The Industrial Revolution was the transition from creating goods by hand to using machines. Its start and end are widely debated by scholars, but the period generally spanned from about 1760 to 1840" [4] The industrial revolution is the transition from near exclusive muscle power (humans/oxen/horses) to steam power, machine power. From 1800 to 1860 the percentage of people (in the US) that were farmers went from 80% to 50%. It takes a lot longer before that percentage falls below 20%. The transition to service and knowledge jobs wasn't until the 1960s, that's about 200 years after the industrial revolution. Still though, I can't find a single resource that shows US manufacturing percentage was ever greater than 30% of the workforce. The resources I find show there was a consistent increase in manufacturing output until essentially the late 1900s (speaking of the the US only), while at the same time there was a reduction in the percentage workforce in manufacturing. > And now we're potentialy seeing the start of automation in those knowledge jobs. Potentially is the operative word. "ThePrimeTime" aka "Primeagen" recently did a video on Devin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80MPXoRHvK8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80MPXoRHvK8 (start at 8:50, until about 9:45 mark) His assessment, until Devin is 100x more powerful, two orders of magnitude better, only then will Devin even potentially start taking over jobs from humans. I generally agree with that take. I think we get there in maybe 20 to 40 years from now. Personally, that idea seems similar to me as the idea that cars are imminently about to be self driving and you can lease your self driving car as a taxi during work-hours. That idea was floated by Musk since 2014, and every year since, that was going to be a reality within one year. [5] -------------------------- I think your last questions though are very interesting, namely these: "Will this be a painful revolution as the Industrial one? Where will we spend our time and energy on next?" Though, I find your premises to be inaccurate, and your timeline for when this next revolution is off by at least 30 years. It's yet to even start. I'll note we're still living through the automation of the service industry, that revolution is not yet done - computers have not yet eaten the world. As an example, the first successful 'pets.com' is still less than 20 years old, and that is just the act of automating a store-front to purchase cat food - plenty of examples of industries and services that are still largely paper based. A couple years ago I interviewed for a startup that was automating food chain supply, they noted that industry is still almost entirely paper based, and that is in 2021! [1] https://populationeducation.org/a-timeline-of-the-three-major-agricultural-revolutions-in-history/ https://populationeducation.org/a-timeline-of-the-three-majo... [2] https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=11&psid=3837 https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=11... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_agriculture [4] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrialization-labor-and-life/ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrial... [5] https://futurism.com/video-elon-musk-promising-self-driving-cars https://futurism.com/video-elon-musk-promising-self-driving-...

MSFT_Edging 3y ago

I'd love to live in a Communist society. I think our technological capabilities are to the point where a centrally managed economy is not only possible, but extremely doable. The main issue being, our governments and society have made it clear that the opinions of those who hold Capital are far more important than the unproductive surplus. Our entire society now is based around consuming cheap products we don't need, because the previous cheap products wore out prematurely. The focus on a profit motive tosses aside great discoveries that are unable to turn a profit, while encouraging useless advancements that only degrade our lives. IE advertisements make money, but I've never met someone who believes their life to be improved by ads, except for a minority of shareholders. On the other hand, there have been many medical advancements all but scrapped because the lack of profit outweighed the human benefit. The profit motive is incompatible with a robust society. I won't pretend to have the answers on what should be done and how to implement it, but I know that our current system cannot last forever.

andruby 3y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful post. I hope that the current circumstances trigger a renewed interest in thinking about how we organise our society. It would be great if that could be done rationally, without taboos. I don't have high hopes though. The people in power want to stay in power, and any hint at socialistic or communistic ideas are quickly shot down. Communism as implemented by Soviet Russia was pretty bad and failed, but that doesn't mean that the ideas of Karl Marx are all terrible. I like the idea of a centrally managed economy but I don't think it's a stable system. There's too much opportunity for abuse by the central power. I hope we explore the spectrum between extreme capitalism and extreme communism. Does anyone have any reading recommendations that explore these kinds of economic and societal system?
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  I suggest actually reading up on how past or existing Communist countries worked. The Soviet system eventually failed, yes, but not before great strides in a lot of areas. There is an incredible amount of nuance lost in how the west generally talks about these systems, some from general misunderstandings, some from Orientalism, some from downright nationalism. For example, the "soviet" system was a bottom up democratic system where labor unions effectively formed the foundation. There was a lot of thought into how the system was formed and even the CIA admitted Stalin was more of a team captain than a dictator. Hell you can get a lot of interesting tidbits into declassified reports on the Soviet Union. There's the famous one about how the soviets were better fed than their American counterparts, despite the claims of breadlines. It's really quite sad that we are basically not allowed to learn from the positive aspects of these projects. For example, people hate on Stalin a lot, but his 5-year plans were so wildly productive and successful, even a young South Korea deep in a western backed dictatorship copied the idea in order to boot strap their industrial base. China continues to use this idea, the simple method of setting goals in the short, medium, and long term in order to use resources effectively.