That would be helpful. It's not always easy to know which innovation is actually a net benefit.
Leaded gasoline was a superior fuel in many respects but was clearly a fraudulent mistake (it was sold with false assurances of safety).
Even the original Luddites were not wrong in their original critiques - the technological innovations of machined industrialization did indeed replace workers and enrich employers. (That such technological innovation also created wealth was poor consolation for the workers getting the short end of the stick).
Chemical warfare was horrible enough to have military strategists more than willing to agree to ban its usage.
New is not universally a good. In fact, every change has benefits and detriments that will be unequally distributed. History has also shown a tendency for the detriments to be mostly felt by the poor and disenfranchised.
>That such technological innovation also created wealth was poor consolation for the workers getting the short end of the stick
That falls flat when you consider that lower middle class people have access to much greater things than upper middle class people and rich people did 50 years ago.
That falls flat when you consider that lower middle class people have access to much greater things than upper middle class people and rich people did 50 years ago.
To be fair, if you're the guy losing your job today, you probably don't care much about the idea that you might be better off twenty years down the road, or that society in general might be richer in 20 or 50 years. You care about putting food on the table now.
Even if you look at things like re-skilling and the creation of new jobs that results from technology, you're still looking at a potential gap in employment and income where you might starve to death, when you look at this at the individual level. In that regard, it's hard to say that people are wrong to oppose certain kinds of changes.
It doesn't fall flat, it just (potentially) shows a net benefit for most. You've also narrowed the debate to a purely materialistic benefit (.i.e. more things cheaper) while taking a broader view of the whole class of people at a time.
An individual does not have the luxury of evaluating the "good of the many" when they are unemployed by innovation. Equally horrid from the individual's perspective is discovering the skills they've spent a life time accruing are suddenly worthless and make them unhireable.
White-collar workers have only just started feeling this pressure of good jobs disappearing only leaving more menial and lower-paid jobs.
To ignore that some people are harmed by innovation is as silly as pretending that all innovation is a positive.
It's also important to note that you can't just credit changes in living standard to technological innovation. Soft innovations in things like politics and philosophy are AT LEAST as important as technological innovation.
Exactly! Poor people have access to clean plentiful water, cheap, nutritious, and tasty food, very affordable housing to own near numerous options for fulfilling income, plentiful education options, medical safety nets, lots of PTO, ethical insurance programs, brain dead simple non-volatile long-term savings programs, and traffic congestion is all but extinct; I mean the list just goes on and on with how much nicer poor people have it these days compared to rich people of 50 years ago.
It obviously was sarcastic and doesn't deserve the down-votes. If you offered me the deal of exchanging my life today for the life of a "1%er" N years ago, I'd take it for N up to 50, maybe even more, at least back to when penicillin was discovered.
Again, small consolation for workers getting the short end of the stick (e.g. the 13-year old doing 12 hour shifts with no breaks on a fume-laden factory that made your phone). Sure, you have smartphones and the internet and a greater variety of food items. Did this really improve livelihood though?
Leaded gasoline was a superior fuel in many respects but was clearly a fraudulent mistake (it was sold with false assurances of safety).
Even the original Luddites were not wrong in their original critiques - the technological innovations of machined industrialization did indeed replace workers and enrich employers. (That such technological innovation also created wealth was poor consolation for the workers getting the short end of the stick).
Chemical warfare was horrible enough to have military strategists more than willing to agree to ban its usage.
New is not universally a good. In fact, every change has benefits and detriments that will be unequally distributed. History has also shown a tendency for the detriments to be mostly felt by the poor and disenfranchised.
It seems fair to be cautious about the new.