TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Education, Skills & Slavery… and why we’re probably screwed.

48 点作者 marcuspovey大约 13 年前

11 条评论

hessenwolf大约 13 年前
Yeah, we don't need sales &#38; marketing, art, fashion, good taste (I'd literally pay somebody to shop with me, if I didn't have a friend to help), good food, therapy, entertainment, fitness instructors... just coders. Yep.<p>You seem to be showing a really limited understanding of the value that is provided by the current and future workforce. It will shift towards creativity, rather than production, as production becomes more automated, but how is that a thing to be worried about?<p>Anecdotal: I know somebody who recently took a five euro stool from IKEA, and some colorful marble chips, and somehow fashioned it into this thing with a mosaic of a rose on it. I'm usually indifferent to this stuff, but I've seen it and it really is awesome. This person is considering selling these online, and I think it is not the worst idea. What the hell does this have to do with coding? Designing the unique rose and choosing the colours and having the idea in the first place were the value adding parts.
Lazare大约 13 年前
Hmm. So let me see if I understand the article. To paraphrase:<p>We in the west are becoming ever richer as a society; material wealth beyond the dreams of our ancestors lies at our feet. The low skilled have a quality of life that the kings and queens of France would have killed for. Where once 90% of us had to till the soil in order for us to eat, now only a tiny fraction of society truly "needs" to work in order for us all to achieve unprecedented material wealth. Where once the poorest among us starved, now they have iPhones.<p>...and this is terrible.<p>Look, this may be right, but that's an awfully big jump that needs some explaining. And while we're at it, maybe a little more attention on why it would be possible or desirable for everyone to have a computer science degree would be nice. A lot of people would suggest that we're already in the middle of a massive education bubble, and that with the possible exception of some STEM fields, we have <i>too many</i> people going to university.<p>But the biggest problem is that there is a fundamental disconnect between "we're getting richer and more productive" and "the poor are going to starve to death". The "managed decline" section of the post seems particular confused; it can't seem to decide if we're all getting richer or not. If we can't afford welfare, then we clearly aren't - but it was the process of getting richer that was meant to lead to an employment crisis. The implicit model behind this post appears wildly inconsistent, to put it mildly.
评论 #3793281 未加载
评论 #3795651 未加载
dageshi大约 13 年前
I think what always annoys me about articles like this is that the author spends the entire article telling us how everything is changing and the future is completely different but the answer is to tax the rich a bit more. The answer to everything for certain people has always been "just tax the rich a bit more" apparently in this world of ours which is changing beyond recognition, that part never changes.
评论 #3793762 未加载
macavity23大约 13 年前
I agree with his heading <i>the future looks pretty dire for the low skilled</i>, but he then descends into hyperbole. As hessenwolf says, there are plenty of non-technical skills that are very much in demand.<p>Those without such skills have always been at the bottom of the pile, but he's right in that things are going to get very much worse for them. If all you have to offer the world is your manual labour, you are not going to have a fun time of the next few decades.<p>However, his hope that <i>the tide of human suffering rises high enough for the murmurs of discontent from the slave castes turn to cries of revolution</i> is mistaken. Every revolution in history has been made by the educated - sometimes <i>in the name of</i> the proletariat, but never actually <i>by</i> them.<p>The uneducated just get Bread and Circuses, and if the modern world knows how to make <i>anything</i>, it's Bread and Circuses.
评论 #3793396 未加载
tsotha大约 13 年前
&#62;A smart and socially responsible government would be ploughing every penny they can into education and welfare. Education to bring the technical competence of the population up to a level where they stand a chance of competing for the few ultra high skilled jobs the economy of the future has...<p>This makes no sense. If there are such a small number of ultra high skilled jobs the money you spend on education already will be enough to fill them. There's no point in spending buckets of money training people for jobs that aren't there. There are already a bunch of countries around the world where people with advanced degrees are selling trinkets to tourists because there aren't any jobs.<p>&#62;His candour shocked me, and I asked what he suggested as a recommended course of action; “Leave.”, was his reply, “Before it gets really bad.”<p>And go where? If the situation really is as you've described, there isn't going to be anywhere to go.
michaelochurch大约 13 年前
For at least 100,000 years, we've lived in a desperately poor world in which (to rip off Our Lady Peace) "every calorie's a war". We still live in one, if you take a global perspective, but we're moving out of such a state.<p>What do I mean by "desperately poor"? (I'm making a tall assertion since there's no economic comparison, at least none that we know of, to human history.) I mean that we're biologically programmed to rapidly exceed any carrying capacity. Economic growth throughout most of human history has been so slow as to be absorbed entirely in population growth, which has been great for priests and kings but terrible for subjects. Per-capita well-being almost hadn't changed (on a global scale; there were local ups and downs) between 10,000 BC and about 1840 AD. Technological advances were absorbed entirely into the task of supporting larger populations.<p>In a desperately poor world, you need to force everyone to work. People who aren't working are "lazy" and need to be punished. What most dictators actually want is to mechanize work: to replace these complex, difficult organisms (that sometimes break down and stop working) with mechanical ones without family ties, without belief in gods except the ones favorable to "the state", and without creativity or self-awareness or any desire for autonomy. That applies to ancient, semi-fictional dictators like Gilgamesh and it applies to modern, faceless dictatorships like 20th-century authoritarian communism. We're finally finding our way to the compromise, which is to use technology to create those mechanical workers (robots)-- because humans despise being treated as machines, and we're also really bad at the work they do well. Early computers were actually slower than human "computers", but had a lot more in the way of endurance.<p>Now we're moving toward a rich world and we're totally unprepared for it. We have millennia-old assumptions about peoples' relationships with work (that there will always be useful work for people to do, making it fair and reasonable to structure a society where everyone who can work must) that are about to become invalid, and none of our social structures are prepared for this change even on a national scale, much less a world one.<p>I'm starting to think we should just give stuff away. Instead of the IMF and World Bank putting these African countries into debt, let's just tax rich people a little more and pay people to build safe water systems. For free. There's plenty of infrastructural and environmental that the world needs, and if there aren't market incentives for people to do the right thing, then that's a perfect place for government to get involved: tax the rich, and pay underemployed Americans to do things that are good for the country and for the world.<p>For the record, world poverty is a complex problem and most of what we call "aid" isn't what we need to heal the world. Giving money to poor countries just makes their elites richer. We should be giving away water, medicine, technological access, and (most importantly) education.
评论 #3793295 未加载
评论 #3794668 未加载
评论 #3792906 未加载
评论 #3793394 未加载
jerhewet大约 13 年前
&#62; and in a few years time, not being able to code will be as big an impairment as not being able to read and write.<p>Because, y'know, writing code is the <i>easiest thing in the world</i>. And, y'know, <i>anyone can do it</i>, y'know.
评论 #3792860 未加载
评论 #3792804 未加载
Tycho大约 13 年前
<i>In the latter example, a single member of staff can now do the job of a row of checkout clerks, supported by maybe a trained engineer to fix faults in all the stores in a given region. Soon, maybe these too will become redundant (perhaps replaced by RFID scanners to scan your bags and bill your credit card automatically when leaving the store).</i><p>One for PG's 'startup ideas so disruptive they're scary' list
UK-AL大约 13 年前
I believe low skilled jobs will become few. The ones that will survive will be localised, but many more people will trying to get into them. So that will still be a problem.<p>The only way to solve this is in education. There is always something to discover or invent, but there is only so much plumbing work.
lionhearted大约 13 年前
Safe intelligence augmentation is a "when," not an "if."<p>Hell, Piracetam is extremely safe and seems to be worth around 10 IQ points. There's going to be lots more innovation on that frontier. We're already making anti-degenerative-diseases progress and hopefully figuring out nutrition for real, as well as cracking DNA and various personalized medicines.<p>Intelligence augmentation will be bitterly debated and fought against when it comes online, but it's a hell of a lot better than some of the alternatives.
评论 #3793025 未加载
skatenerd大约 13 年前
i found an article that might be relevant<p>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism