Don't be obtuse. I'm referring to the historical precedent set by the last million times some group believed that the world was going to shit, and that their group knew exactly how. Historical precedent clearly tends towards continuation and solutions for the problems that plague us rather than death and destruction because we could not figure them out.

Of course I've thought about it that way, but now let me ask you this: why do you want to think about it that way? What is it inside of you that drives you to believe that THAT way is the correct way to think about it? Doesn't the fact that you are worrying about it mean that the problem is comprehensible to the majority of the human race, that there are probably also millions of other people worrying about it, that the more of a problem that particular problem becomes, the more people will think about it, and that a solution will probably be found? How many times does that situation have to play out before people no longer listen to that demon inside of them which says that the unknown will destroy all of us? Answer: never I hope, because it is that demon which saves us, time and time again.

Stop trying to cast people's legitimate arguments as mere products of some deep-seated fear of the unknown. If you talk like that we can't have any kind of proper discussion. I could just as easily retort that your rose-coloured reassurances are nothing but a manifestation of your inner child's need for a comfortable continuation of the status quo.

And I don't know why you keep pointing to history as a source of solace. History is nothing but an endless procession of empires and civilisations falling in tatters, no matter how many of their plucky young problem-solvers were united in worry. Just because people tend to cry wolf doesn't mean there's no such thing as wolves.

Anyway, no-one is arguing that humanity per se will not survive the emerging tech tsunami. We are, I hope, trying to calmly and rationally discuss its profound implications for the socio-economic structure we know and enjoy today, what we can do to prepare ourselves and others, and what roles we might seek or try to create for ourselves to do the greatest good in the coming era.

The technologies are different, but the argument that bad things will come of technological advance is always the same. Luddites are nothing new, and just as their argument is the product of a deep-seated fear of the unknown, so too is yours.

When civilizations fail, they do not fail because of technological advancement. I challenge you to name an example which did.

These arguments are not being raised by Luddites! These are not the vague grumblings of displaced union laborers, but well-articulated concerns of the people actually bringing about these changes to society. You're fooling yourself if you think "society" will magically fix itself when nobody has to work and thus nobody gets paid. That nebulous "society" is right here, looking for the answers to difficult questions.

Now, remind us what happened to Rome once there was abundant free bread and entertainment? You can't say that technological advancement never causes societies to fail, because we have exactly zero historical precedent.

A Luddite, as it is commonly used, is someone who believes that technological advance will cause harm to some segment of society, and the term is applied independent of whether the fretter believe they will be harmed by that advancement or not.

>You're fooling yourself if you think "society" will magically fix itself when nobody has to work and thus nobody gets paid.

If no one has to work, then there is no shortage of goods to supply everyone's needs. If there is no shortage of goods to supply everyone's needs, then no one HAS to work. Or are you worrying about a small group of people controlling the vast majority of automated production, and thus being able to enslave everyone else?

Seriously? No, really... Are you seriously worrying about this? You DO realize that even if such a scenario were ever to actually occur, it won't be in our lifetimes, or even in our children's lifetimes, right?

Worrying about this is akin to worrying about an asteroid slamming into earth 200 years into the future. It's kind of silly.

>Now, remind us what happened to Rome once there was abundant free bread and entertainment?

Oh, correlation, how often you are confused with causation!

The Roman Empire most certainly did not fall due to overabundance.

This discussion has gone from bad to ridiculous.

> This discussion has gone from bad to ridiculous.

Indeed - at this point I can't even tell what your argument is. We are not Luddites, no matter what you erroneously believe the definition to be.

You do realise that you are not the first person to have imagined the post-scarcity society, right? Well, yes, of course it would be nice to live in a socialist utopia of plenty. The trajectory we are on does not appear to lead to such a utopia, however - hence the conversation.

And I believe we will see the beginning of this within our lifetime, absolutely, in fact we are seeing it right now. In 20 years' time it may well be much too late.

Wouldn't it be good to manage the transition gracefully, rather than risk 200 years of near-feudalism, fighting to regain something akin to democracy in the face of an immensely empowered capital-class aristocracy?

A Luddite, as it is commonly used, is someone who believes that technological advance will cause harm to some segment of society and then wants to stop that technological advance.

We're talking about creating technology, within our own lifetimes, that will make most human labor obsolete. This will require a massive restructuring of society. I'm aware of one local company that is laying off over 100 manufacturing jobs and creating a small number of engineering jobs in their place. The way our society is currently structured, if those 100 people can't find some other labor to perform in exchange for money before their unemployment benefits expire, they will go without shelter and starve. It doesn't matter how much food there is, if they don't have the money to buy it.