> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
-- Stephen Hawking, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama...
Rough at the time for sure. But few would wish to go back.
> But few would wish to go back.
What does that even mean? I would love to "go back" and deal with things by not just letting the masses starve while people in costumes play god and smell their own farts, which is exactly what they do today. I would LOVE to see see that space exploration and awesome inter-species music festivals we might have in 2021 if the last few millenia hadn't been such pathetic ass.
Do they?
Back in the day when everything was manual I think you could reasonably make a living farming your own land. It was hard work but it was possible.
Nowadays everything is so optimized that margins are razor-thin and the remaining farmers are being squeezed from every side, both from the demand side for their produce (supermarket chains driving prices down) and from the equipment side (John Deere & co intentionally making equipment that's impossible to repair unless you pay them exorbitant prices).