It is always in vogue, regardless of time or place, to blame outsiders for one's own ills. Americans, up to and including candidates for president, blame foreigners for the evisceration of the wealthiest middle class in the history of the world, which America boasted for a half century.
Since my birth in 1979, the wages of the American middle class has increased by 0%. Not to indulge in "class warfare", but that is a harbinger, is it not? But what was it that really destroyed our middle class? Was it the politicians? Was it the Mexicans? Was it the Chinese? Or, was it the Machines?
It was the machines. Think of this as the slightly less dramatic manifestation of Terminator or Space Odyssey 2001, where humans become so "intelligent" that they invent computers "intelligent" enough to destroy them. Humans that intelligent suffer from a disorder called "artificial intelligence", which they pass to their machines.
But when the American middle class goes looking for demons to slay, they should not focus on the Chinese or on the Mexicans. They should focus on the politicians, yes, but not as much as the machines. It is America's own technology which has torn America asunder.
A society creates machines that can do work at 100 times the rate as men. It then feigns surprise when this results in layoffs. It blames the gooks, the spics, but never the microchips.
I'm not saying we should all smash our microwaves. But we should be honest about the cost of "progress". Oftentimes, it is an unbearable cost. And oftentimes, it is a cost born of our own creation.
The whole premise of postwar American civilization seems to have been built upon an assumption of "nobody will ever live or consume as we do." That seems a quite presumptuous pillar to erect an entire empire upon, but we did, not that we ever acknowledged it. And now we are shocked that other nations actually want industrial revolutions of their own.
Honestly, who could have ever foreseen that China and India, which account for one-third of humanity, would one day demand large quantities of oil? Well, for starters, every rationale human being on earth. Apparently, America's elite were not included in that cohort.
We invented the machines. We then feign shock when it results in a hemorrhage of working-class jobs. We feign shock again when foreign nations incorporate the very same machines. And now we live in a world of 8 billion people, of which at least 80 percent are completely expendable by the logic of the machines.
As of now, thank God, the machines do not have "logic" as far as we know. But humans have clearly crossed a thresh hold. We (or at least a critical sum, or "some", of us) have decided that we value efficiency more than human wealth and comfort.
We knowingly deprive thousands of people of income and dignity and security if their functions can be completed cheaper and faster by a machine, which it usually can. That is the revolution, and it has already happened. Now, the machines just sit back and watch all their former masters blame the Mexicans and the Chinese for their own suicide.
Since my birth in 1979, the wages of the American middle class has increased by 0%. Not to indulge in "class warfare", but that is a harbinger, is it not? But what was it that really destroyed our middle class? Was it the politicians? Was it the Mexicans? Was it the Chinese? Or, was it the Machines?
It was the machines. Think of this as the slightly less dramatic manifestation of Terminator or Space Odyssey 2001, where humans become so "intelligent" that they invent computers "intelligent" enough to destroy them. Humans that intelligent suffer from a disorder called "artificial intelligence", which they pass to their machines.
But when the American middle class goes looking for demons to slay, they should not focus on the Chinese or on the Mexicans. They should focus on the politicians, yes, but not as much as the machines. It is America's own technology which has torn America asunder.
A society creates machines that can do work at 100 times the rate as men. It then feigns surprise when this results in layoffs. It blames the gooks, the spics, but never the microchips.
I'm not saying we should all smash our microwaves. But we should be honest about the cost of "progress". Oftentimes, it is an unbearable cost. And oftentimes, it is a cost born of our own creation.
The whole premise of postwar American civilization seems to have been built upon an assumption of "nobody will ever live or consume as we do." That seems a quite presumptuous pillar to erect an entire empire upon, but we did, not that we ever acknowledged it. And now we are shocked that other nations actually want industrial revolutions of their own.
Honestly, who could have ever foreseen that China and India, which account for one-third of humanity, would one day demand large quantities of oil? Well, for starters, every rationale human being on earth. Apparently, America's elite were not included in that cohort.
We invented the machines. We then feign shock when it results in a hemorrhage of working-class jobs. We feign shock again when foreign nations incorporate the very same machines. And now we live in a world of 8 billion people, of which at least 80 percent are completely expendable by the logic of the machines.
As of now, thank God, the machines do not have "logic" as far as we know. But humans have clearly crossed a thresh hold. We (or at least a critical sum, or "some", of us) have decided that we value efficiency more than human wealth and comfort.
We knowingly deprive thousands of people of income and dignity and security if their functions can be completed cheaper and faster by a machine, which it usually can. That is the revolution, and it has already happened. Now, the machines just sit back and watch all their former masters blame the Mexicans and the Chinese for their own suicide.
1 comment:
"We (or at least a critical sum, or "some", of us) have decided that we value efficiency more than human wealth and comfort. We knowingly deprive thousands of people of income and dignity and security if their functions can be completed cheaper and faster by a machine, which it usually can."
You could also flip the argument in that desire for human wealth and comfort have engendered that very efficiency. I believe you made a similar statement earlier on.
Another side to this coin is the human rights arguement, in the news again due to the Olympics in Beijing. Corporations by fundamental rule will seek to maximize their profits, whether by exploiting human or machine labor. I am not advocating wide-scale industrialization as a human-rights solution however.
The key is balance in navigating that transition space of progression. Job retraining, finanicial support, and corporations evolving into machinization more slowly over a generation instead of going for the next years profit increase helps to cut the blood loss. Were the real challenge lies is in convincing corporations to think on a larger, long-term, 'humanitarian' scale. And so do we as consumers: we must vote with our ballots and pockets to be more concerned about ensuring a healthy planet and people for the next generation and not just for the short term. Problem is, the way things are stacked most of the time for most of the world is the necessity of the short term to ensure your survival. If we could only trust each other on a global scale to be concerned about each other...
Post a Comment