Hacker News Reader

Comment by vannevar | Hacker News Reader

We're nearing a point where we might question whether efficiency as a goal in itself has ceased to be beneficial to us. After all, we begin as dust and end as dust; why not make things more efficient by eliminating all the messy life part in between?

Maybe we should be less concerned about efficiency and more concerned about our quality of life. And not just we the wealthy (and everyone reading HN is much, much wealthier than the average human being), but everyone. Because if there is one thing history demonstrates, it's that when wealth becomes overly concentrated, grief is sure to follow for everyone.

View on HN

By improving efficiency we are improving the quality of life of those around the world. Due to rapid improvements in technology those in the poorest countries can now easily access information, entertainment, books, knowledge from anywhere in the world at remarkably low cost -> Greatly improving their quality of life (if we agree that life like we have in the west is the goal).

What's the point of completely automating everything if you still have to work 40 hours a week?

Why do you still have to work 40 hours a week once everything is automated?

The problem there though is that those working have little interest in paying say 50% tax to support those who they have put out if work with increased efficiency.

Automating tasks allows us to work on tasks that we don't know how to automate and leads to innovation.

Due to rapid improvements in technology those in the poorest countries can now easily access information, entertainment, books, knowledge from anywhere in the world at remarkably low cost -> Greatly improving their quality of life...

I find it unlikely that someone who is put out of a job by new efficiencies would find much solace in low cost YouTube access. It's precisely this blind faith in efficiency as a measure of progress that I question. I'm not saying it's always bad, but it's clear now that improved efficiency is not always good. We need to find new, more suitable metrics by which to measure progress.

There are fundamental problems that aren't even close to being solved. Health care is the most obvious one. Efficiency in one area should (in theory) allow us to spend more on unsolved problems. Of course, that can only lead to employment to the extent that someone is willing to spend.

Efficiency in one area should (in theory) allow us to spend more on unsolved problems.

It may also create new unsolved problems. Fast food is efficient, but has it represented a net gain in our quality of life or health?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com